Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVI

[Knaight]

The HEMA tournaments that guy Nathan fights in are usually not so genteel as epee fighting. The rules typically allow punching, kicking, grappling and throws. Swordfish for example in Sweden, the one he was fighting the 6'4" guy during the video, allows all of the above usually.


Nathan's not exactly a representative case. He's very good, and he's extremely fast. In the video posted he was fencing circles around the other guy. Then there was the matter of aggression, where Nathan was clearly able to be very aggressive and get up in their for strikes, and the other guy really wasn't.

That doesn't indicate that size and reach aren't advantages. It indicates that they won't make up for being significantly less skilled, slower, and less aggressive than your opponent.

[Galloglaich]

What are these numbers based on?

The wikipedia entry for "serfdom" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
States:


It considers cotters and bordars to be of lower status than the serfs (and villeins are considered to be the common kind of serf).

So I was just wondering what your sources were, and how they were defining serf?

I'm referring to late medieval Europe, of the era of the Black Army, that we were comparing to Rome.

As you are probably aware, serfdom declined sharply during the period 1100-1500 in most of Europe except for (Mongol controlled) Russia.

I just found an interesting chart which helps illustrate the changes of that time period, showing the number of manuscripts produced in Europe

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/European_Output_of_Manuscripts_500%E2%80%931500.pn g

I define a serf as somebody who isn't allowed to leave their land or the service of the person who owns it.

G

[Galloglaich]

(I was trying to find a chart with rates of serfdom with no luck, but I thought that one was pretty interesting)

G

[Roxxy]

Is there any truth in the assertion that, during most of the combat in Gaul and Germania, the average individual Roman legionary was an inferior warrior to the average individual Gaul or German (the Roman being less likely to have learned to fight well as a child, and therefore not having quite the same instinct, even after a decade or so of intense adult training), and that a legionary in single combat was rather likely to be defeated? The assertion goes on to say that Roman military discipline, coordination, and leadership were very effective methods of compensating for this problem.

[Kiero]

Is there any truth in the assertion that, during most of the combat in Gaul and Germania, the average individual Roman legionary was an inferior warrior to the average individual Gaul or German (the Roman being less likely to have learned to fight well as a child, and therefore not having quite the same instinct, even after a decade or so of intense adult training), and that a legionary in single combat was rather likely to be defeated? The assertion goes on to say that Roman military discipline, coordination, and leadership were very effective methods of compensating for this problem.

Total crap, for the most part. Roman legionaries were professional warriors who were trained and practised their craft regularly, regardless of whether they wanted to or not. They did so for the 20-25 years of their term.

While there was a Gaul warrior class of elites who did little but fight, they were a tiny minority of aristocrats amongst any Gallic army. The average Gaul was a farmer who didn't pick up a weapon in anger from one season to the next, except when called to the tribal levy. He might be a taller, heavier, stronger guy than your average Roman legionary, but all that counts for little if he isn't trained and experienced enough to know how to put that all to use. Plus if he doesn't have armour (and most besides those warrior elite would have none) or training to fight in formation, he's going to struggle against someone who is trained.

[Galloglaich]

Not going to voice an opinion on the individual Legionnaire vs. Gallic warrior here (maybe later, I have to think about it)

but in this issue of part time farmer / merchant / artisan part time soldier, vs. full time soldier, I think you have to be careful.

Part time farmer / soldiers could be pretty tough, and full time soldiers could be great, or they could be pretty useless. It depended on what kind of experience they had. Part time soldiers who fight every few months or every season for several years can be pretty though. Full time soldiers with bad training and little combat experience can be the reverse.

The Vikings were part time farmers*, and part time fighters, and they were pretty tough. Same for the majority of the medieval armies. Most of the Greek Hoplites. In fact, same for the original Roman Legions.

One advantage I think the Romans had over the Gauls though was they had a lot more men who had good armor and weapons. The Gauls had very good armor and weapons but it's not clear that they had anywhere near enough to go around.

G

* or fishermen, merchants, artisans, etc.

[Mike_G]

If two people are fighting with epees under 19/20th century rules where even 'attempt at grabbing your opponent' is 'serious offense' -

then one can indeed say that save (possibly reach) and some rare bursts of wrist strength etc. during weapon clashes, size and weight isn't really important.


I disagree.

In Epee (which is my worst weapon) the rules actually help tall people. Using your reach is never illegal, but most of the great equalizing dirty tricks are.

The more safety rules, the more reach is a big advantage. I'm not allowed to grab the tall guy's weapon or his wrist or kick him in the knee and duck under his guard. He is allowed to use his greater reach.

And battle conditions don't usually let the guy with reach retreat forever and keep using his reach. Fencing generally does.

I think real world fights, especially mass fights, even the field for the little guy. "Fair" fights favor the guy with reach.




If two people are fighting unarmed in confined space, with a lot of potential dangers around (falls, hard surfaces) then it definitely crucial factor.


Strength is a big deal. Height less so.

Reach is always nice, but us short guys know we have to block the first attack and get inside, then stay close and get vicious. We practice blocking or voiding the first attack and closing. Then, when we are inside the big guy's reach, we can use our lower center of gravity and generally better speed to mess him up.

Not saying size isn't an advantage, but I'd rather a well trained short guy than a mediocre tall guy.

[Animastryfe]

Hello, I have several questions.

1. What is the role of the shotgun in modern militaries?
2. For infantry armed with spears or spear-like weapons and armoured with the best Renaissance era munitions-grade/mass-produced plate armour, were shields used with a one-handed grip on the spear ever preferable to no shield and a two-handed grip?
3. Was armoured wrestling with a dagger strictly superior to unarmed wrestling IF we were to discount the stabbing ability of the dagger?

Edit: Typo with number 3. I meant whether using a dagger in wrestling/grappling is superior to not using a dagger if the dagger could not be used to stab/cut. The combatants may be armoured or not.

[Brother Oni]

Hello, I have several questions.

1. What is the role of the shotgun in modern militaries?
2. For infantry armed with spears or spear-like weapons and armoured with the best Renaissance era munitions-grade/mass-produced plate armour, were shields used with a one-handed grip on the spear ever preferable to no shield and a two-handed grip?
3. Was armoured wrestling with a dagger strictly superior to unarmed wrestling IF we were to discount the stabbing ability of the dagger?

1: CQB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_quarters_combat) mainly. They also have a wider range of ammunition types than other weapons, such as baton rounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round) which are generally less lethal than their plastic/rubber bullet counterparts in other long arms, breaching rounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_round) for forced entry and either shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_(pellet)) or slug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_slug) rounds for more lethal options.

2: Shields were becoming obsolete by the Renaissance era outside of specialised troops, like targeteers. If you have that quality of armour then generally a shield isn't needed.

3: I'm not sure what you're asking. If both men are in plate harness, without weapons, it's going to be a fairly drawn out slugging match as neither can really injure the other until one ends up in a submission hold like an arm bar (choke holds aren't going to really work).
If one man was unarmoured, it's going to favour the armoured man as any blows are going to be mitigated by the armour and gauntlets are going to increase the striking ability of the armoured man. Similarly choke holds are going to be one sided and all the unarmoured man has is superior visibility and agility, the latter of which is negated once they end up in a clinch.

[Tobtor]

G: Since the discussion is now on many things, I will try to limit my response to three items that interest me: 1. Swords and weapon production in the period 100BC-500AD 2. Thralls in Viking age scandinavia. 3. peasants in Scandinavia. Its not that I wouldn't like to continue the other paths of discussion but with other discussions (very interesting ones, on clocks, archery, crossbows etc), the issues are clogging up


This is quite lovely, in fact I do love it, it's a really important find for reasons well beyond this discussion so I've ordered this book (http://www.amazon.com/Illerup-Adal-Archaeology-Mirror-Hardback/dp/B00EQC4LA8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419351734&sr=8-1&keywords=Illerup+Adal+-+Archaeology+as+a+Magic+Mirror
) which should have nice photos and further information.

A very nice short introduction/conclusion to their major research project indeed, with nice pictures etc. If eever in Denmark you should visit Århus and the Moesgaard exhibition to see some of the finds.


1) That is not a Gladius, or if it is, it's a new type to me, I've never seen a fullered Gladius. It may be more like a Spatha type (a type which, by my understanding, was influenced by and adopted from Germanic and earlier Celtic type weapons). Were any of these swords from the find of the Gladius type as far as you know?

Indeed it is a Spatha. There are clear trends in the swords in the bog-finds (besides Illerup many other military deposits are know from the period 1AD-500AD (roughly)). These have been devided into three main phases of war.

One is the first century or so AD, where gladius swords dominate. Here the defeated army came from Germany/northern poland (based on combs, strick-a-lights and other personal equipment). It is likely that tribes living in present day Denmark had been allied with the romans (a small influx of Roman goods in elite graves, combined with roman sources mentioning allied tribes). The wars could then be a result of the tribes figting the romans had sopme scores to settle after Teutoburger wald.

The second wave is from the mid 2nd centyry-early 3rd century. This include the Illerup army, and came primarily from present day southern Norway and/or Esstern Sweden (with some signs of other regions represented as allies/mercenaries). The roman swords are a mix of Spatha and Gladius types (yes, both kinds in general pattern welded).

The third phase comes from western Sweden in the early late 4th/5th century and has Spatha as the dominant sword type.

The reason for this change in sword type could partly be explained by reorganisation in the Roman military in the late imperial phase, but could also be related to the demands of the germanic elite.

It is important that many Roman artifacts reached Scandinavia in the period, coins glass etc, and that roman goods seems to have been prestigious.


2) There is considerable evidence of sophisticated weapon creation from north of the Alps. Pattern welding itself was developed, as far as I understand, by Barbarians of northern Europe, not by the Romans. The most important Roman center of ferrous metalurgy was in the Illyrian / Gaelic city of Noricum which is in modern day Austria, but there were many other centres much further north, including Sollingen.

I guess you didn't read the wiki which noted that they have found bloomery forges (or to use their term, 'smelters') in Sollingen going back to the 1st Century BC.

Regarding this: in the period before 1AD we do see some Celtic swords in Scandinavia, as well as other items of central European origin (silver works etc). The thing is, that after the Roman invasion of Gaul this import stops. Rome was the new prestigious empire and everything Roman was apparently sought after, while Celtic imports were so last century.

I just realised that Sollingen was an "Oppida"- the Celtic centres (maybe even towns, though most researchers prefer to name them proto-towns or similar). The Oppidaes ends their function (or at least they are greatly diminished in size) around the time off Ceasar-Augustus, even outside the area that was conquered. It seems the Celtic world in Europe collapsed in a century after the invasion of Gaul.

It might be true that pattern welding was developed in the Celtic world and adopted by the Romans, but it wasn't widely used by Germanic smiths in the first 4 or 5 centuries after AD. There simply lack the growing specialising in the area, that is dominated by small villages. This means the swordsmith is also the Iron extractor, the maker of everyday goods etc.

So like greek-slaves have translated Plato, the Celtic-slaves made Roman Swords for the legions. It might be a way for a Celtic-smith to avoid the mines etc. And if you first have skilled slaves you have them teach the other slaves.


Yes but in Iceland, both based on the archeology and the Sagas (which I'm very familiar with) the thralls are heavily outnumbered by the free farmers.

I agree they likely did not outnumber the farmers total. That does not mean that they where not used, especially by the elite. Single farms and even smaller areas could likely have many thralls. In Norway during the Viking age the "bryti" is an un-free person who manages one of the kings farms. The Bryti seems to have held a high status in some ways, but were in some ways still a "slave".


There is a big difference between a tenant farmer and a serf, the latter by definition can't travel around. Denmark isn't a region I've studied closely yet for the medieval period but I'd be really surprised if 80% of the population were serfs. Do you have some data or source which says this?

I never claimed that, I claimed they where not free peasants. I do not know what to put into the words tenant and serf respectively (or rather they can mean many things each). The peasants I claimed there where 80% of (of the households, there would have been un-imployed people, farmhands, etc) is the type who managed a piece of land on behalf of a noble or the church. They made a contract stating the yearly fee and a number of days they had to do additional labour for the noble/church. These contracts were as a general rule permanent and could not be broken or terminated by the peasant. So while they could go to town and sell products, they couldn't "move" permenantly. So while it is more freedom than saves, it is not freedom as we understand it.

Interestingly, in the late14th/early15th century it became the norms on the major Islands (not in Jutland apparently, but Jutland had always had more free peasants as well) that the sons (the women could be married away) had to stay on their birth-farm and take over their parents contract if the nobleman/church wished it, thus removing even more freedom, and by your favourite late medieval period (late 15th century) they where bought and sold by the nobles. This last thing was outlawed in the early-mid 16th century.
(as a side note; fines for hurting a tenant peasant was paid to the noble he had servitude towards, not to himself - since it was the noble who lost "labour").

In the following centuries the king tried to give them more freedom, but the nobles rejected (some later laws however did give peasants who had been able to move to town and live there for three years "amnest" and their freedom). The inheritance of obligations was ended in late 17th century, but after just 30-40 years of freedom a general law was passed in the early 18th century that all people above 14 should remain in their present church parish (for easier army recruitment).

By the way you did not respond to fusiliers post on the Domesday book
"The Domesday Book showed that England comprised 12% freeholders, 35% serfs or villeins, 30% cotters and bordars, and 9% slaves."

With slightly higher numbers of freeholders, especially in some regions in Jutland owned directly by the kng (kings shires), I would assume the same for for Denmark (and northern German rural districts) in the period 11-13th century, and no slaves later but otherwise the same.

Perhaps the problem is that most accounts you have looked at are from towns or other district with high level of freedom, and thus a high degree of produced historical sources? The problem could be that manuscripts/paintings did care about people not being free, thus we get mostly information on the free population?

[Storm Bringer]

Hello, I have several questions.

1. What is the role of the shotgun in modern militaries?
2. For infantry armed with spears or spear-like weapons and armoured with the best Renaissance era munitions-grade/mass-produced plate armour, were shields used with a one-handed grip on the spear ever preferable to no shield and a two-handed grip?
3. Was armoured wrestling with a dagger strictly superior to unarmed wrestling IF we were to discount the stabbing ability of the dagger?

3) not a clue, don't know enough to make a intelligent answer.

2) very generally, late era plate armour was good enough that shields fell out of favour as unneeded, so no, two handed grips were preferred as the armour compensated for ta lack of shield.

1) current british practice is to give the point (lead) man a shotgun, which is used for a variety of purposes, like door breaching, less than lethal options, and to give Terry Taliban a real shock if he walks round a corner into a patrol (such as in room clearance, or when patrolling though thick vegetation). we've only started using shotguns in the last 5 or so years, after experience in Iraq and Afgan (and many, many squaddies seeing US troops with shotguns and saying "why can't we get one of those, boss?").

[Spiryt]

So like greek-slaves have translated Plato, the Celtic-slaves made Roman Swords for the legions. It might be a way for a Celtic-smith to avoid the mines etc. And if you first have skilled slaves you have them teach the other slaves.

Weren't vast majority of Roman slaves spoils of war throughout whole period?

By 2 century AD Galia was already pretty much peaceful, Latinising quickly.

Of course there would still be slave influx from trade, piracy, poor people being sold etc. but someone with as high position as serious smith doesn't seem like best candidate to become slave in those times.



Was armoured wrestling with a dagger strictly superior to unarmed wrestling IF we were to discount the stabbing ability of the dagger?

So you're pretty much asking about unarmored vs armored wrestling?

If so, then, like mentioned, it's pretty hard to tell.

Armor, even fantastically tailored, does weight and inhibit your movement, so theoretically person without one could have advantage of nimbler movements.

On the other hand armor, particularly stiff, hard one would be weapon by itself, and unarmed person would couldn't strike freely, to say at least.

[Galloglaich]

G: Since the discussion is now on many things, I will try to limit my response to three items that interest me: 1. Swords and weapon production in the period 100BC-500AD 2. Thralls in Viking age scandinavia. 3. peasants in Scandinavia. Its not that I wouldn't like to continue the other paths of discussion but with other discussions (very interesting ones, on clocks, archery, crossbows etc), the issues are clogging up

Quite understandable, the conversation has indeed become very complex.



I just realised that Sollingen was an "Oppida"- the Celtic centres (maybe even towns, though most researchers prefer to name them proto-towns or similar). The Oppidaes ends their function (or at least they are greatly diminished in size) around the time off Ceasar-Augustus, even outside the area that was conquered. It seems the Celtic world in Europe collapsed in a century after the invasion of Gaul.

Yes but as in many other formerly Celtic areas (Bohemia for example) Germanic and a bit later, proto-Slavic tribes moved in and took over many of the same settlements. In fact many if not most of the major cities in Europe were on sites that were originally Celtic Oppidae, then in some cases Roman administrative centers, then Germanic (or other 'Barbarian') tribal centers, then Latin / Catholic bishoprics, and then towns.



So like greek-slaves have translated Plato, the Celtic-slaves made Roman Swords for the legions. It might be a way for a Celtic-smith to avoid the mines etc. And if you first have skilled slaves you have them teach the other slaves.

Seems plausible enough, though again I gather the most important center for Roman iron-working in this period was the Celtic - Illyrian center (Oppidae? Town? City-State?) of Noricum, as well as some in what is today Spain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum

The fact that the Romans were making wholesale pattern welded swords by the 2nd or 3rd century is news to me, quite interesting, and something I'll have to research further. Thanks for enlightening me on that point.

How do they know where the swords were made? Radioisotopes?


I agree they likely did not outnumber the farmers total. That does not mean that they where not used, especially by the elite. Single farms and even smaller areas could likely have many thralls. In Norway during the Viking age the "bryti" is an un-free person who manages one of the kings farms. The Bryti seems to have held a high status in some ways, but were in some ways still a "slave".

That sounds very similar to the German 'ministeriales' who had been originally serfs, but then became free soldiers, administrators and even knights and eventually nobles. Serfdom and slavery are complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis



I never claimed that, I claimed they where not free peasants. I do not know what to put into the words tenant and serf respectively (or rather they can mean many things each).

Well, in many cases a tenant farmer is someone who simply doesn't own their own land but farms land that is owned by a landlord, on their behalf. Unless they are forced to remain on their land however, they aren't serfs. In the late medieval period, particularly after the disruptions caused by the catastrophe of the Black Death, serfdom very generally speaking was rare and rural farmer populations were quite mobile - farmers with a lot of skill, those who knew how to implement the Three Field system, how to drain the land properly, who were good at animal husbandry, who had craft skills to make and use a lot of iron tools and so on, were in high demand particularly east of the Elbe (including in Mecklenburg and Pomerania close to your border in Denmark) so they were invited to move there with very nice terms

The Teutonic Order for example put all German speaking and western Peasants, as well as most Poles and Kashubians and others, in their territories under what was called Kulm law, which is a modified form of German Town Law based on the town charter of Chelmno (Kulm to the Germans) which in turn was originally based on Magdeburg Law. Most of the villages in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Prussia, and much of Poland were chartered on Kulm law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulm_law

Kulm law wasn't as good as some other German town charters but it was much better than the feudal law in places like Denmark or much of France, and the charter did not include serfdom since subjects under Kulm law were free to travel.

However further north on the other side of Lithuania in Livonia, the local peasants, mostly native Baltic people (Liv, Lett and Estonian), were ruled over in very harsh conditions by the Livonian nobles. The townfolk (mostly German, as well as Scandinavian, Scottish and others) were free and quite independent, but the peasants were not and suffered under a very harsh regime. The Estonians were some of the most violently ill-treated people in the history of the world.



Interestingly, in the late14th/early15th century it became the norms on the major Islands (not in Jutland apparently, but Jutland had always had more free peasants as well) that the sons (the women could be married away) had to stay on their birth-farm and take over their parents contract if the nobleman/church wished it, thus removing even more freedom, and by your favourite late medieval period (late 15th century) they where bought and sold by the nobles. This last thing was outlawed in the early-mid 16th century.
(as a side note; fines for hurting a tenant peasant was paid to the noble he had servitude towards, not to himself - since it was the noble who lost "labour").

In the following centuries the king tried to give them more freedom, but the nobles rejected (some later laws however did give peasants who had been able to move to town and live there for three years "amnest" and their freedom). The inheritance of obligations was ended in late 17th century, but after just 30-40 years of freedom a general law was passed in the early 18th century that all people above 14 should remain in their present church parish (for easier army recruitment).

Indeed, quite interesting, especially in light of the situation in Sweden just across the Sound (though I guess that area was Denmark for a long time too)



By the way you did not respond to fusiliers post on the Domesday book
"The Domesday Book showed that England comprised 12% freeholders, 35% serfs or villeins, 30% cotters and bordars, and 9% slaves."

Yes I did reply to it, upthread. Maybe not adequately.



With slightly higher numbers of freeholders, especially in some regions in Jutland owned directly by the kng (kings shires), I would assume the same for for Denmark (and northern German rural districts) in the period 11-13th century, and no slaves later but otherwise the same.

Perhaps the problem is that most accounts you have looked at are from towns or other district with high level of freedom, and thus a high degree of produced historical sources? The problem could be that manuscripts/paintings did care about people not being free, thus we get mostly information on the free population?

No, I don't think it was a "problem", I think it is a different matter of focus. You are from Denmark so you are very interested in Danish history understandably. I've studied Denmark's neighbors like the Swedes, the Prussian towns and the so called 'Wendish' Hanseatic towns near Denmark, and the Dithmarschen and the other peasant republics in the area.

So lets take a closer look at your area, north eastern Europe, and see if I'm describing an accurate pattern.

Based on what I've read there, while it's clear Danish Monarchy wanted to impose strict Feudalism on as much of Sweden, Norway, Schleswig-Holstein and even Mecklenburg and beyond as they could, (and that this desire was shared by many German princes and prelates to whom they were related by blood in many cases) it's just as clear that they only succeeded to any extent in Norway. Their attempts to impose Feudalism in Sweden ended in brutal civil wars and ultimately, the breaking of the Kalmar Union and Swedish independence.

Their attempt to crush the Hanseatic cities reached perhaps it's high point with the breaking and annexation of Wisby on the island of Gothland in 1361, a catastrophe for the Hanse and one which forever changed the nature of the league itself (making it less international and more German, something which would come to cause problems in the long run). But the league struck back, forming the Confederation of Cologne which broke the Danish army and actually sacked Copenhagen and depopulated much of Eastern Denmark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Cologne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Stralsund_(1370)

So the north-east of Europe, like much of the rest of Europe, was a very mixed. Denmark is harshly Feudal. Livonia is even more harshly Feudal with the exception of some Free Cities. Sweden and Finland are mostly populated by free farmers (hunters etc.) with a few small free cities and some territorial towns.

Prussia and Pomerania are mostly relatively free, with a lot of Free towns. So is a lot of Poland where I know serfs are a minority by the late medieval period. Lithuanians are mostly free (especially in Samogitia which is another peasant republic type zone) but within Lithuania many Ukrainains are not.

Closer to your border there are numerous powerful peasant clans, the most important being the Dithmarscher, but there are many others like the Rustringer etc.. There are numerous powerful Free Cities in the area and they have zones around them in which they extend their town law to the peasantry. Mecklenburg and Pomerania are mixed, with some free and some Feudal zones. A little further to the south there is the Lusatian league, a district of upper Lusaitia close to the border between Bohemia, Germany (HRE) and Poland, which is run by a coalition of small Free Cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_League

in the mid-15th Century the Prussian towns become strong enough to throw off the yoke of the Teutonic Order and join with Poland, on very generous terms that preserve their freedom for centuries to come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Confederation

Here is a map which just shows cities, but it gives you some idea how many Free Cities were in that area.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=125

In Europe more generally, there were Feudal Zones and there were zones where freedom was the common thing, but by the late medieval period, serfdom in places like France and England had largely been replaced by a free peasantry. It was already largely gone in northern Italy, Flanders, and most of Germany. I don't think it's an outlier position to say that a small percentage of the population of Europe (outside of the Ottoman or Russian zones) were serfs in the 15h Century. That was the point of my other map.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=124

So yes in medieval Europe in the time of the domesday book there were many zones of harsh feudalism for most of the population - especially in places like England, France, and Castille in Central Spain. And Denmark too based on what you posted. Also in many parts of the Balkans and various pockets all over Europe. By the late medieval period serfdom had been lifted as the result of many economic changes which came from the largely autonomous zones like Flanders and Northern Italy and the Rhineland. The Feudal districts had to compete with these areas and needed to modernize. The Black Death played a big role by causing an acute labor shortage, as did the Osteidlung, in which Germans and other Central and Northern European settlers moved en-masse into Eastern Europe to settle areas which in some cases had been depopulated by the Mongols, in others by civil wars, the Plague, or were simply empty due to difficult terrain which the settlers knew how to cope with (like bogs which could be drained for example)



G

[Galloglaich]

The wiki on the Ostsiedlung, which is worth a read. If you ever saw an old Frankenstein movie (or Mel Brooks Young Frankenstein) and wondered why the town folk were German in the Slavic country, this is why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung

G

[Brother Oni]

So you're pretty much asking about unarmored vs armored wrestling?

If so, then, like mentioned, it's pretty hard to tell.

Armor, even fantastically tailored, does weight and inhibit your movement, so theoretically person without one could have advantage of nimbler movements.

On the other hand armor, particularly stiff, hard one would be weapon by itself, and unarmed person would couldn't strike freely, to say at least.

It would also help if the original question specified what type of armour - fabric is not mail is not plate. The Japanese developed an entire combat system (jujutsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jujutsu)) around their armour and I would be very surprised if there wasn't a western counterpart.

Even today there are some styles that still practice armoured wrestling, like Takenouchi ryu jujutsu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2ytu9b29ds#t=125).

[Galloglaich]

It would also help if the original question specified what type of armour - fabric is not mail is not plate. The Japanese developed an entire combat system (jujutsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jujutsu)) around their armour and I would be very surprised if there wasn't a western counterpart.

Even today there are some styles that still practice armoured wrestling, like Takenouchi ryu jujutsu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2ytu9b29ds#t=125).

Yes there are western counterparts, Ringen in Germany and Gioco Stretto or Abrazare in Italy. There are both armored and unarmored forms of this, but ringen is crucial to fighting in armor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringen

It's very similar to jujitsu, the same kind of joint locks, throws etc.

http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/images/abrazare_2_3.jpg

G

EDIT: Found a new image because of bummer buzz kill anti-remote linking software

[Carl]

I think the original question contains a typo people. I think he meant unarmed not unarmored. He was asking how a dagger would affect things if you couldn't stab with it, to which i have no clue as to the answer.

[Galloglaich]

If you are wrestling with a guy in armor and you aren't armored, you are in trouble. The armor itself is a weapon. Think about getting punched by this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LrqdVimoePc/Twr4mZtS7pI/AAAAAAAAA4s/iMkElvOP2mk/s1600/Gauntlets%2B-%2BFrance%2Bor%2BBelgium%2B-%2B1600.jpg

And the leverage of an iron clad forearm, knee, shin etc., is unstoppable against an unarmored body.


G

[Milodiah]

To be fair, you can certainly still stab someone in armor with a dagger while in a grapple. That's probably the main way to use a dagger against an armored opponent. You gotta be really close to target those joints and uncovered areas, and he's not going to let you get there without some violence. Honestly, it's almost always better to be armed than unarmed in this situation, since the majority of lethal options most unarmed combat offers are denied to you by late Medieval plate armor with full-face visors, gorgets, coifs, etc.

Jesus, it is hard to talk about armor with autocorrect...forgets....coins...

[fusilier]

Fusilier, it sounds like you know more than me about medieval clocks, but isn't that replica of the Dondi clock made from the (14th Century) book, and doesn't the book itself show bronze or brass parts?

G

I've seen the original illustrations of de Dondi's clock, and there doesn't appear to be any indication of the internal working being bronze. I don't see anything in my sources that say precisely that it was made from iron, but bronze parts would have been unusual (perhaps even unheard of) given the time period (and the original size). Bronze was definitely used for the decorations and some of the external parts, but for the basic workings I don't see anything that would suggest the use of bronze. To make an iron clock would require some blacksmithing skills, and most modern clockmakers don't have those skills, so they adapt the designs to the more familiar materials.

If you google Ardavin clocks, you'll find medieval style* clocks made in iron (and also wood, but I suspect that's primarily to sell a cheaper version). Early clock makers usually set up near black-smiths -- the Abbot of Wallingford who designed and built an even earlier astronomical clock was the son of a blacksmith.

The oldest surviving clocks are iron and are usually dated to the 15th century, but Gerhard Dohrn van Rossum (History of the Hour) notes that this is really just a guess by most museums, and they could be earlier, or at the very least, representative of earlier technology.

---
* they're not really reproductions, although the weight driven clocks are pretty close.

Note: I double checked and the earliest watches were also being made of iron.

[Galloglaich]

Ok the drawings in Dondi's book looked like brass to me, that's why I was asking.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Giovanni_Dondi_dell'Orologio_dial_of_Venus.jpg/280px-Giovanni_Dondi_dell'Orologio_dial_of_Venus.jpg

G

[Roxxy]

My understanding is that one carries a two handed sword on a march by holding the hilt in one hand and letting part of the blade rest on the shoulder. If this is true, is the blade carried in a sword or wrapped in something, or is the blade kept bare? How often were two handed swords used as opposed to arming swords?

Furthermore, if sheathing a sword on the back is a bad position for drawing in combat, is there any position other than the hip that was popular?

[Milodiah]

My understanding is that one carries a two handed sword on a march by holding the hilt in one hand and letting part of the blade rest on the shoulder. If this is true, is the blade carried in a sword or wrapped in something, or is the blade kept bare? How often were two handed swords used as opposed to arming swords?

Furthermore, if sheathing a sword on the back is a bad position for drawing in combat, is there any position other than the hip that was popular?

Honestly, if you're worried about the sword cutting you, it's not going to. One of the important things about is that (unless gravity/momentum is having its way with the target) even a sharp blade won't do much cutting without the blade moving. You can rest a knife on your finger without it cutting, you can even press on it some without drawing blood (factchecked by me, Mr. Always-has-a-knife-within-arms-reach, just now). Half-swording even involves holding the blade in combat.

For the second question, it became more prevalent in the late Medieval era and Renaissance, when armor started to cover more and better and shields weren't necessarily the only thing between you and an entire army trying to kill you. There's been discussion of it in more detail on and off in this thread within the last ten or so pages, IIRC.

Finally, many cavalry loadouts actually place the sheath on the saddle setup rather than on the rider, but other than that no that I'm really aware of. From what I understand, though, Roman legionaries kept their gladii on the opposite hip from what would be expected; ie right-handed kept it on the right. Apparently it's easier to draw like that than across the body when the large shield is in play.

[rs2excelsior]

From what I understand, though, Roman legionaries kept their gladii on the opposite hip from what would be expected; ie right-handed kept it on the right. Apparently it's easier to draw like that than across the body when the large shield is in play.

This is true. They carried the gladius on the right and the pugio (the small dagger) on the left. Except Centurions; if I remember correctly, they carried the gladius on the left, as would be expected. I've got a blade here about the size/shape of a gladius (a long Scottish dirk), and drawing it from the right isn't as awkward as you'd expect. Plus it keeps the shield from interfering, especially if you're drawing while running at the enemy.

As to how two-handed swords were sheathed, I don't know. I've seen the across-the-back sheath from movies and such, but it seems like it'd be almost impossible to draw/sheath like that. So I'll let someone else take that question.

EDIT: Smaller blades were often carried in many different places on the body. A Scottish sgian-dhu, for example, was a small knife worn on the calf. I've heard it was there so that it could be drawn as its owner apparently kneeled in supplication. But that's a last-ditch backup as opposed to a primary weapon, which I think is what you were asking about.

[fusilier]

Ok the drawings in Dondi's book looked like brass to me, that's why I was asking.
G

Interesting -- that appears to be one of the complicated faces of the clock, but some of the other color pictures do show pretty light colored gears. (All my sources have black and white reproductions . . . d'oh!)

I've seen some reproductions that use iron gears too, but the wikipedia entry for the clock only comments that the frame was brass or iron.

Samuel L. Macey (editor Encyclopedia of Time) states it was brass, differentiating itself from the typical iron clocks, but says it "might be said to have fitted more closely into the tradition of astronomical instrument design than into that of machines for public display and the ringing of large bells."

Implicit in that statement is that it's unusual for a clock -- but that there was a tradition of astronomical instruments made from brass -- establishing a capability of making fine instruments from such materials.

[Animastryfe]

3: I'm not sure what you're asking. If both men are in plate harness, without weapons, it's going to be a fairly drawn out slugging match as neither can really injure the other until one ends up in a submission hold like an arm bar (choke holds aren't going to really work).
If one man was unarmoured, it's going to favour the armoured man as any blows are going to be mitigated by the armour and gauntlets are going to increase the striking ability of the armoured man. Similarly choke holds are going to be one sided and all the unarmoured man has is superior visibility and agility, the latter of which is negated once they end up in a clinch.

Thank you, Stormbringer and Spiryt for the answers. What I meant was whether the ability to use a dagger as leverage in holds, submissions and such made up for the inability to use one hand to grab. The question assumes that the two wrestlers are similarly armoured. I have some experience with unarmed and unarmoured grappling, and many of the techniques I know would be much harder with only one hand but two arms, so I wonder whether the role of the dagger in ringen was primarily for stabbing/cutting, or whether some techniques required or were helped with one hand holding a dagger.

[Animastryfe]

I think the original question contains a typo people. I think he meant unarmed not unarmored. He was asking how a dagger would affect things if you couldn't stab with it, to which i have no clue as to the answer.

Oh damn, you are absolutely correct. I did not notice. I am going to correct it now.

[Brother Oni]

Thank you, Stormbringer and Spiryt for the answers. What I meant was whether the ability to use a dagger as leverage in holds, submissions and such made up for the inability to use one hand to grab. The question assumes that the two wrestlers are similarly armoured. I have some experience with unarmed and unarmoured grappling, and many of the techniques I know would be much harder with only one hand but two arms, so I wonder whether the role of the dagger in ringen was primarily for stabbing/cutting, or whether some techniques required or were helped with one hand holding a dagger.

Everything I've seen involving a dagger in armoured wrestling involves stabbing or cutting, so in my opinion, it's unlikely. I don't have any experience in ringen though, so I'll defer to anybody who says otherwise.

While something like a rondel dagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger) is certainly long enough (wiki says it's about 20" total length which is on par with the shortest leverage weapon I know of, the tonfa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonfa) at 15-20"), the tapering point weighs against it in terms of durability, and most of the armed grappling techniques I know of involve having both hands on the weapon, an edged blade dissuades against it again unless your hands are armoured enough.

I know of some locks/throws that could be potentially used with a dagger held in a point downwards grip, but I'm unsure of the practicality of it.

[Roxxy]

As to how two-handed swords were sheathed, I don't know. I've seen the across-the-back sheath from movies and such, but it seems like it'd be almost impossible to draw/sheath like that. So I'll let someone else take that question.I can actually answer that part. You don't sheathe any sword across the back if you expect to draw it in battle. It is in fact an impossible to reach position. A two handed sword, so far as I've read, was carried with one hand on the hilt and the blade resting on the shoulder. My question was whether the blade was placed inside a sheathe, wrapped with something, or just left bare when a two handed sword is carried like this.

[Galloglaich]

I can actually answer that part. You don't sheathe any sword across the back if you expect to draw it in battle. It is in fact an impossible to reach position. A two handed sword, so far as I've read, was carried with one hand on the hilt and the blade resting on the shoulder. My question was whether the blade was placed inside a sheathe, wrapped with something, or just left bare when a two handed sword is carried like this.

All the images I've seen for the 'true' two handed sword, Montante etc. (5'-6' long weapons) show people carrying them bare-blade. I assume they must have had some way to cover the blade though for rain etc. but I've never seen a depiction of that. Longswords (closer to the 4' long range) were worn on the hip or on the saddle as others have mentioned. Some cavalry (knights etc.) wore an arming sword on their hip and a longsword on the saddle.

Incidentally there is a type of sword which was sometimes worn on the back, a type of English basket-hilt or hanger sword called a backsword, which were worn on the back by English cavalry I think in the middle to the end of the 17th Century. That is a single-handed sword though. I've never seen any depiction or reference to a two-handed sword being worn on the back.

I was trying to find an image of one carried on the back in the English Civil War but my google-fu failed me, maybe someone else can find it.


What I meant was whether the ability to use a dagger as leverage in holds, submissions and such made up for the inability to use one hand to grab

I think there is some of that, though most of the time the techniques involve trapping or binding up the other guys dagger while stabbing them with yours. But there are a lot of locks etc. and as Oni mentioned the daggers they used then tended to be pretty long. You can see many if not most of these techniques online pretty easily.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_169.jpg

Talhoffer has a bunch of dagger plays that you can find here if you scroll down a bit

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fechtbuch_(Talhoffer)

There is a website called the Wiktenauer which has almost all the fight-books aggregated on it, look for Talhoffer, Fiore, Durer and others, and go to their dagger sections. You'll see the entire system of with all the images (hundreds of images), transcription in the original language and translations (sometimes more than one)

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi

The dagger is sometimes used to hook joints and hands and so on, so if you look you may find things which interest you. Fiore also has a baton section with a small stick which I think also has some locks like that.

G

[Galloglaich]

There is a depiction of someone making a clock or astronomical device in the upper left of the plate on Mercury in the Castle Wolfegg Housebook, thought you might find it interesting fusilier


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_16r_Merkur.jpg

G

[Tobtor]

Yes but as in many other formerly Celtic areas (Bohemia for example) Germanic and a bit later, proto-Slavic tribes moved in and took over many of the same settlements. In fact many if not most of the major cities in Europe were on sites that were originally Celtic Oppidae, then in some cases Roman administrative centers, then Germanic (or other 'Barbarian') tribal centers, then Latin / Catholic bishoprics, and then towns.

True, but we DO NOT see any signs of advanced craftmanship at the sites from around the BC/AD turn and several hundred years foreward. I would like for you to show examples of "Germanic" or continued Celtic production of high class weapons in central Europe in the period 1AD-300AD. As i said the Celtic world (the central European one, barring the British isle for a moment) broke down after the Roman conquest of Spain and Gaul.

Sure the oppodae areas (usually moved some distance thus the actual oppodaes are outside present day towns), are still "central" in other aspects, but the prototown apearance dissapear. That is anyway what my professor in iron age Archaology taught a few years back - but if you have new information, please share.


That sounds very similar to the German 'ministeriales' who had been originally serfs, but then became free soldiers, administrators and even knights and eventually nobles. Serfdom and slavery are complex.

Yes, it is. That was my point. The border from slavery to serfdom, and further to tenant peasants, and even free peasants is not easily defined. It is especially difficult when dealing with multiple millennia of time and many different regions.


In the late medieval period, particularly after the disruptions caused by the catastrophe of the Black Death, serfdom very generally speaking was rare and rural farmer populations were quite mobile - farmers with a lot of skill, those who knew how to implement the Three Field system, how to drain the land properly, who were good at animal husbandry, who had craft skills to make and use a lot of iron tools and so on, were in high demand particularly east of the Elbe (including in Mecklenburg and Pomerania close to your border in Denmark) so they were invited to move there with very nice terms

Two thing: the three field system is not that complex when first discovered and can easily be practised by serfs, as it was done for centuries after the medieval period as well. So can animal husbandry and farming with "iron tools".

The black death: banning young men from moving was a result of the black death as well - one possibility is trying to attract people, another is preventing them from leaving. The nobles made sure the oldest peasant son took over the fathers contract, any remaining sons could be delegated to farms/land empty after the black death. It is not my understanding that peasant life became universaly better after the Black death (it did not in Denmark and I am sure Denamrk is not the only example of this - I know "German"-peasants was forced to settle on empty Jutlandish soils in the 15th and 16th century), but the Black death did offer cause for changes for either better or worse.

SO in many ways the medieval period was a period of gradual decline of freedom for the majority (in Denmark), even though the peasants was granted rights at several points, this was true for the freeholders, who became fewer and fewer, and the nobles got more rights over the tenants who became more common.


Based on what I've read there, while it's clear Danish Monarchy wanted to impose strict Feudalism on as much of Sweden, Norway, Schleswig-Holstein and even Mecklenburg and beyond as they could, (and that this desire was shared by many German princes and prelates to whom they were related by blood in many cases) it's just as clear that they only succeeded to any extent in Norway. Their attempts to impose Feudalism in Sweden ended in brutal civil wars and ultimately, the breaking of the Kalmar Union and Swedish independence.

Partly true yes, but remember the King was seen as the protector of the peasants, and they generally were more free in the districts he rules directly rather than the ones with a noble in between. It was also the king who several time banned the harshest serfdom, and Christian II (the one who finally lost Sweden) was the one banning the buying and selling of serfs. Beside he lost Sweden due to him killing of a host of nobles, not peasants (though I suppose he was univeraly disliked in Sweden). In general the Kings were pro liberty for towns and peasants, while the nobles were against (since that would give merchants and peasants more influence on behalf of the nobles obviously - while the Kings had an interest in several equally strong groups).



Their attempt to crush the Hanseatic cities reached perhaps it's high point with the breaking and annexation of Wisby on the island of Gothland in 1361, a catastrophe for the Hanse and one which forever changed the nature of the league itself (making it less international and more German, something which would come to cause problems in the long run). But the league struck back, forming the Confederation of Cologne which broke the Danish army and actually sacked Copenhagen and depopulated much of Eastern Denmark.

Generally true - but depopulation is a strong word.... at least in number of villages etc the area didnt experience a depopulation at all (the number of settlements near Copnehagen seem to grow throughout the medieval period). The south-eastern parts had suffered much more in that respect during the vendish/slavic piracy in the centuries before.


In Europe more generally, there were Feudal Zones and there were zones where freedom was the common thing, but by the late medieval period, serfdom in places like France and England had largely been replaced by a free peasantry. It was already largely gone in northern Italy, Flanders, and most of Germany. I don't think it's an outlier position to say that a small percentage of the population of Europe (outside of the Ottoman or Russian zones) were serfs in the 15h Century. That was the point of my other map.

I am not convinced by your maps/data, since I understand the freedom mentioned as most often referring to the the freedom of the freeholders. Serfdom/tenant farmers are also dominant in the post medieval Europe in both eastern and western areas. I do know that freedom was high in some regions, but it was an ever changing pattern relying on local conditions

Looking at your map, you have mainly CITIES on, and then a few pathes of other territories of freedom - funny how those regions are poor agricultural lands, distant to power centres or very inaccessible (mountains...) - huh? The Swedish and Finnish territories you have marked were very loosely populated with, as you say, farmers and hunters. The Dithmarchen had sandy soils combined boggish areas (it is after all called a marselands...) of poor agricultural significance but hard to control - the remaining regions are the Scottish Higlands, Pyrenese, the Alps - what do they all have in common? Right; mountains.

My understanding of northern German history is not that the peasant outside Lübeck, Bremen and Hamburg had more freedom in the medieval period than the peasants in Denmark.

[Kiero]

You can rest a knife on your finger without it cutting, you can even press on it some without drawing blood (factchecked by me, Mr. Always-has-a-knife-within-arms-reach, just now).

Depends on the knife. I've got some cooking knives that are really sharp. I cut my little finger on one reaching into a drawer and gently touching it while picking up another implement. Literally a little tap and it opened up a freely-bleeding papercut of a wound.

[Brother Oni]

Honestly, if you're worried about the sword cutting you, it's not going to. One of the important things about is that (unless gravity/momentum is having its way with the target) even a sharp blade won't do much cutting without the blade moving. You can rest a knife on your finger without it cutting, you can even press on it some without drawing blood (factchecked by me, Mr. Always-has-a-knife-within-arms-reach, just now).

Plus I always assumed that they rested the flat of the blade on the shoulder, mitigating the risk further.

The Japanese nodachi had sheaths though and there was a cultural/etiquette habit to have their blades resting edge up to avoid the weight of the blade dulling the edge. Obviously with a double edged sword, that's not possible. :smalltongue:

http://www.kuniyoshiproject.com/Stories%20of%20100%20Heroes%20of%20High%20Renoun%2 0II_files/image012.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Samurai_wearing_a_nodachi_%28field_sword%29.png

Reading up more about it, there were two ways the nodachi were carried - slung across the back (which had the issue of being unable to be drawn quickly) or carried in the hand. Back in the Muromachi (14th-16th Century), it was popular for a samurai to have a follower help draw the odachi.

[Kiero]

Reading up more about it, there were two ways the nodachi were carried - slung across the back (which had the issue of being unable to be drawn quickly) or carried in the hand. Back in the Muromachi (14th-16th Century), it was popular for a samurai to have a follower help draw the odachi.

On a more general point, this is one facet of reality most fantasy RPGs get wrong: warriors have attendants. At the very least a squire/shield-bearer/spear-carrier/body slave/whatever to look after their equipment, carry stuff and provide them with weapons in battle. If not their own retinue/support team. It's something B/X (by way of ACKS) introduced me to that I'd never noticed in my early gaming days.

[Dr TPK]

After the development of muskets (please look at the muskets from the 3.5 DMG if in doubt), what would be the next logical step in the development of gunpower technology?

Inside the spoilers there's a needless explanation of why I'm asking this.
My campaign has muskets, but I want to prevent any development of gunpowder technology. I'm trying to identify what would be the next step after muskets. That step will be linked to a horrible omen by a powerful high priest, who'd warn against the techological advancement.

[Knaight]

After the development of muskets (please look at the muskets from the 3.5 DMG if in doubt), what would be the next logical step in the development of gunpower technology?


There isn't really a single next logical step. Gunpowder weaponry has had a ton of different developments, which themselves are based in a ton of different technologies. What ends up getting developed next is highly dependent on what is already there. This involves everything from logistics networks to spread of knowledge to proliferation of different types of infrastructure.

[Spiryt]

After musket really kicked in, it generally stayed for very long time.

Though the problem could be in definitions etc. I guess - most weapon used in late 17th and 18th centuries were WAY, shortened and lighter compared to first weapons called 'muskets'.

Generally, next very big step was breach loading that could be reliably used at large scale.

Which lead to the fact that rifling could be as well used on large scale as well.

Before that, development of muskets and other similar firearms was more a matter of slow, very often meandering evolution.

[Gnoman]

Both the breech-loader and the rifled barrel technically predate the musket, both having been tried in the days of the Arquebus or even the handgonne. The advantages of breech-loading were conceived of immediately, and the basic principle of rifling goes back to Ancient Greece, which tried (unsucessfully) to induce spin in the projectiles fired from ballistae and catapults for greater accuracy. The early breech-loaders failed because metallurgy was too primitive in the era (the guns usually burst in the first few firings), and it proved impossible to seal the breech due to the lack of large-scale precision manufacturing (to my knowledge, the only precision instruments from this era are clocks, which were extremely expensive and not desired on a sufficient scale to build up a precision manufacturing industry until much later), which not only worsened the bursting problem but also greatly weakened the force of the shot. Meanwhile, rifles were just too slow to load, and they weren't used on a large scale until they found favor with American frontiersmen (who found a much smaller ball than was normal to be satisfactory) in the late 17th and early 18th century and weren't adopted by military forces until the introduction of the Minee bullet in the mid 19th century.

Neither restriction is likely to be a factor in a fantasy setting. Most settings have materials far stronger than the low-grade iron or brass that was used in the early ages of gunpowder, and most magic systems use tools that require just as much precision to make as a breech-loader, making it probable that such tools would be more available than was the case historically. Once a practical breechloader was introduced, the smoothbore barrel (except for shotgun-type weapons) would essentially cease to exist. In such a setting, the musket would probably never have been invented.

[Gnoman]

Those I haven't heard of. I was referring more to personal firearms, as I don't know nearly as much about early artillery other than that it was there.

[Galloglaich]

Actually small breach-loading cannon were being used in the 14th Century and were common in the 15th, I posted some images of some 15th Century ones upthread a couple of pages. They worked really well. The breaches only held the charge though not the projectile. They would prepare multiple breaches for rapid firing.

Breach-loading hand-guns were around since the late 15th Century and through the 16th. For example this one (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=33732&stc=1) (mid 16th Century) and this one (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=50768&stc=1) (15th Century)

Shooting contests in Augsburg were banning rifled barrels (which were considered cheating) as early as 1440.

There is a good thread on 15th Century breach-loading firearms here (it also includes a really cool 16th Century wheel-lock breach loading pistol)

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7364&page=1&pp=30

The thing about that period, 15th-16th Century, is that there was a huge variety of different skill levels in weapon production and warfare, and nothing was really standardized the way it would be later. From a RPG point of view, it means that you can have some pretty amazing 'steampunk style' gadgets, and no, not just clocks, LOTS of other things. No time right now to make a list but just to cite one sort of trippy example (which I have brought up before), automata. Check out this one

http://io9.com/5795086/in-the-15th-century-satanic-automata-wigged-out-churchgoers

G

[Gnoman]

Breach-loading hand-guns were around since the late 15th Century and through the 16th. For example this one (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=33732&stc=1) (mid 16th Century) and this one (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=50768&stc=1) (15th Century)

Shooting contests in Augsburg were banning rifled barrels (which were considered cheating) as early as 1440.

There is a good thread on 15th Century breach-loading firearms here (it also includes a really cool 16th Century wheel-lock breach loading pistol)

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7364&page=1&pp=30


I was somewhat overgeneral in my previous post, as I was aware that there were some exceptionally fine weapons that didn't blow up. I was referring more to weapons in general use, and there was no infrastructure for the level of precision the linked weapons required, as well as the quality of the metal needed (the image you linked appears to have been a steel gun, making it rather expensive for the era, as that much steel would have made a very nice helmet or set of gauntlets (both of which were, I believe, out of reach of the average person or even small community).

As for rifling, I made the point that it was around, it just didn't reach common use (as in, something that would be a person's primary weapon rather than something used for target contests and such) until the rise of the Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle (which used a ball about two-thirds of the size of most muskets, making loading less of a chore) to prominence much later on.

That said, most of the reference books I had were somewhat old, and may be out-of-date regarding what is known. If you have a source that suggests that either weapon was common, I'd be delighted to look at it.

In any case, the point I was trying to make is that the fundamentally different environment of a typical fantasy world means that many of the practical limitations of RW firearm development are nullified, and there is ample historical evidence that the late development of many features was attributable more to those limitations than it was to lack of inspiration.

[Galloglaich]

All quite reasonable points, I guess what I'm trying to emphasize is that when it comes to the late medieval world, the term "in common use" is somewhat problematic in general, as there is no standard anywhere.

The best kind of gear was almost what you might not see again until the 18th Century in some cases, but at the same time you might have some really crude gear right along side it. With guns as an example really crude hand-culverins were still in pretty widespread use at the same time as what were basically matchlock arquebuses, sometimes in the same army.

I also think it tends to get very exaggerated what the dividing line was between good and bad kit. Based on the modern world we assume that the richest and most powerful people had all the best stuff, the rolex watch and private helicopter and the poorer and run of the mill people had the wal-mart garbage and the minivan. But the medieval world was much more complex than that.

Steel armor as you mentioned for example was not by any means unique to the richest princes. In fact some of the richest princes in the world may not have had it. It was being produced in certain towns, in quite large numbers incidentally by the 15th Century, and it was affordable to low ranking knights, common burghers, even peasants.

Also the idea that fin metalwork with steel, bronze, or iron was unusual is incorrect. Look at the crossbow spanners like the cranequin or all the metal elements of horse harness in this era, or the armor and swords themselves, the gears and parts of all kinds of machines in wide use from trip hammers to sawmills, maritime and nautical components, physicians tools and so on, and you'll find that finely made metal objects are by no means rare.

What separated the good stuff from the crap as often as not was simply a mountain range or a trade route.

G

[Gnoman]

Also the idea that fine metalwork with steel, bronze, or iron was unusual is incorrect. Look at the crossbow spanners like the cranequin or all the metal elements of horse harness in this era, or the armor and swords themselves, the gears and parts of all kinds of machines in wide use from trip hammers to sawmills, maritime and nautical components, physicians tools and so on, and you'll find that finely made metal objects are by no means rare.


Outside of the gears (which is surprising to me, as I thought most of the non-clock machines used pulleys in that era), most of that is on a completely different level of precision from what is required for a workable breech-loader. I'm not disputing that quality work was very common, any more than I'm claiming that feudal levies were mostly unarmored after the era of Charles the Great (who fixed the "soldiers required from each community" at "the number of byrnies the community can acquire or make").

What I'm trying to say is that there's a certain degree of craftsmanship that is restricted to modern industrial processes, or the sort of incredibly skilled master craftsman that is rare in any era, and that level of craftsmanship is what you need to make a breechloading gun.

[Galloglaich]

Outside of the gears (which is surprising to me, as I thought most of the non-clock machines used pulleys in that era), most of that is on a completely different level of precision from what is required for a workable breech-loader. I'm not disputing that quality work was very common, any more than I'm claiming that feudal levies were mostly unarmored after the era of Charles the Great (who fixed the "soldiers required from each community" at "the number of byrnies the community can acquire or make").

What I'm trying to say is that there's a certain degree of craftsmanship that is restricted to modern industrial processes, or the sort of incredibly skilled master craftsman that is rare in any era, and that level of craftsmanship is what you need to make a breechloading gun.

Sure, but I think you are grossly underestimating the amount of precision craftsmanship which goes into something like producing tempered steel armor, swords of the type they were making at that time, clocks like the Prague astronomical clock or the Astrarium which I posted upthread, or devices like the cranequin... not to mention a movable type printing press.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mUWj9ZrOtBY/USuKNojZ6FI/AAAAAAAAAE0/l4oDaVaFsgA/s1600/2008BW2280.jpg

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/72/HJRK_A_2269_-_Crossbow_windlass,_late_15th_century.jpg

http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/aa/original/DP282638.jpg

Functional Ak-47s are actually being made in workshops in the tribal areas of Afghanistan today under much cruder conditions than a high-end workshop in 15th Century Milan or Augsburg.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/armas_paquistao_15-tfb.jpg

Meanwhile a top quality replica sword costs more than an Ak-47 does to make. Partly of course this is due to an economy of scale but they do use modern manufacturing techniques to make those swords at Albion (laser CnC machine etc.). I think you can look at that as a sign of how tough it is to make armor like this out of tempered steel

http://www.hermann-historica-archiv.de/auktion/images51_gr/52592.jpg

have you ever seen real 15th swords or armor?

G

[Thiel]

Well, as far as line or general issue weapons goes the general trend seems to have been:
•Fire/matchlocks
•Wheel locks (I'm not sure how common these where on muskets. Most examples I've seen are horsepistols)
•Flintlocks (Brown Bess et al)
•Percussion locks
•Rifle muskets (Primarily Minié pattern weapons, but I believe other systems were adopted in a few places)
•Paper cartridge breachloader (Dreyse, Chassepot and a few others)
•Metallic cartridge breachloader (Remington Rolling Block, Martini-Henry, etc)
•Repeating breachloader (Lebel, Kragh-Jørgensen, Mossin-Nagant)

I'm specifically discounting stuff like the Baker rifle since it was only used by a limited number of troops, even among the light infantry and the Pensylvania rifles because it was never issues as a military arm and it didn't fare particularly well when it was used as one.

It's worth noting that there's a lot of overlap and in some places they skippes a step. For example the Prussians went straight from percussion muskets to the Dreyse needlegun and both derved alongside each other for some twenty years.
Or for an extreme example the American Civil war had a few instances where troops armed with smoothbore percussion muskets and possibly even flintlocks went op against opponents armed with repeating rifles.

[Gnoman]

Sure, but I think you are grossly underestimating the amount of precision craftsmanship which goes into something like producing tempered steel armor, swords of the type they were making at that time, clocks like the Prague astronomical clock or the Astrarium which I posted upthread, or devices like the cranequin... not to mention a movable type printing press.

The comment on the Prague clock confuses me, as I've repeatedly stated that gears are a high-precision thing.
[/quote]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mUWj9ZrOtBY/USuKNojZ6FI/AAAAAAAAAE0/l4oDaVaFsgA/s1600/2008BW2280.jpg

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/72/HJRK_A_2269_-_Crossbow_windlass,_late_15th_century.jpg

http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/aa/original/DP282638.jpg

Functional Ak-47s are actually being made in workshops in the tribal areas of Afghanistan today under much cruder conditions than a high-end workshop in 15th Century Milan or Augsburg.
[/quote]
Modern guns have the massive advantage of the metallic cartridge, which was impossible to make until the invention of the percussion cap. Cartridges mean that a gun can be made to far looser tolerances than loose-powder weapons because the cartridge itself prevents a lot of leakage and contains the explosion. Modern powder is also much less likely to burst a gun due to the explosion characteristics. If the workmen in question are taking raw metal and turning it into a gun (as opposed to making them out of broken guns), that's quite impressive, but not proof.


Meanwhile a top quality replica sword costs more than an Ak-47 does to make. Partly of course this is due to an economy of scale but they do use modern manufacturing techniques to make those swords at Albion (laser CnC machine etc.). I think you can look at that as a sign of how tough it is to make armor like this out of tempered steel

Much of that is probably limited production run, combined with the cost of that sort of machining equipment (combined with the cost of running the thing, CNC operators and programmers earn fat paychecks). I know for a fact (having seen it done) that such a machine could produce far more difficult things for the same cost.





have you ever seen real 15th swords or armor?


Swords yes. I know several collectors that have authenticated Japanese swords, and one that has a few Western ones. Armor is something I haven't seen, as the museums around here focus more on the Greeks and Egyptians.

I'm beginning to suspect that we're using "precision" to mean different things. For me, it's tolerances, as in "This bit of metal must be within .1" of design spec or it won't work", which is something that doesn't matter much for swords or armor (the former, as i understand it, is balanced more by feel than by measurement, while the main need for accuracy in the latter is proper fitting). It is somewhat important for crossbow mechanisms (your pictures don't show the actual mechanism, just the track it moves on), but the tolerances there can be fairly loose. It's principally important in this time period for gearing, particularly small gears. A loose-powder black-powder breech-loading firearm has to be made to the same degree of tolerances as would be found in a very good clock, and such clocks from that era appear to have been fairly rare up until scientists cracked the navigation puzzle and spurred a huge demand. OF course, it is possible that clocks were far more common that I believe to be the case, and many simply didn't survive.

[Eldan]

Maybe more a linguistic question, but in a 19th century text I habe found the expression "Spike the Cannon". Would anyone know what that means?

[Thiel]

It's a quick and dirty way of disabling cannons. You take a nail and hammer it into the touch-hole until it's flush. Removing it again is a time consuming job for an armourer.

[GraaEminense]

From the Wikipedia article on Marshal Ney, on the importance of spiking cannon:

Ney's cavalry also failed to spike enemy cannon (driving iron spikes into the firing holes) while they were under French control (during the cavalry attack, the crews of the cannon retreated into the squares for protection, and then re-manned their pieces as the horsemen withdrew). Ney's cavalry carried the equipment needed to spike cannons, and spiking the cannons would probably have made them useless for the rest of the battle. The loss of a large number of cannon would have weakened the army and could have caused the Anglo-Allied force to withdraw from the battle.

Edit: Monument over John Paul Jones' 1778 attack on Whitehaven (I think):
http://www.whitehavenandwesternlakeland.co.uk/johnpauljones/hammer.jpg

[Kiero]

It's a quick and dirty way of disabling cannons. You take a nail and hammer it into the touch-hole until it's flush. Removing it again is a time consuming job for an armourer.

If you have time to do a proper job of it, you also file off the top of the nail.

[Galloglaich]

I'm beginning to suspect that we're using "precision" to mean different things. For me, it's tolerances, as in "This bit of metal must be within .1" of design spec or it won't work", which is something that doesn't matter much for swords or armor (the former, as i understand it, is balanced more by feel than by measurement, while the main need for accuracy in the latter is proper fitting). It is somewhat important for crossbow mechanisms (your pictures don't show the actual mechanism, just the track it moves on),

Actually if you look closely you can see some of the gears


... but the tolerances there can be fairly loose. It's principally important in this time period for gearing, particularly small gears. A loose-powder black-powder breech-loading firearm has to be made to the same degree of tolerances as would be found in a very good clock, and such clocks from that era appear to have been fairly rare up until scientists cracked the navigation puzzle and spurred a huge demand. OF course, it is possible that clocks were far more common that I believe to be the case, and many simply didn't survive.

Well you can actually see the gears in the photos I posted if you look closely, but here is a little more detail

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=90010&stc=1

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=90007&stc=1

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=90045&stc=1

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=90047&stc=1

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=90049&stc=1


and just to give you an idea that these weren't one in a million rarities or one-off devices that only kings and emperors could afford

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=34550&stc=1
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=34639&stc=1

Anyway the point here is totally moot since if you look at that other thread I linked, you'll see an abundance of evidence that breach loading cannon were extremely common in the 15th Century and (functional) breach-loading firearms while rare were not exactly unheard of. I think the reason breach-loading firearms didn't become as common as the breach-loading cannon is that it didn't necessary mean a huge jump in efficiency, precisely because they didn't have the percussion cap. You still had to load the bullet and prime the pan and so on.

However, the bigger picture here that I'm trying to convey is that in the period roughly 1400-1520, you have a lot of very high tech military equipment being used all over Europe (along side some much less sophisticated gear) which rivals and in some cases surpasses kit that you don't see again until the dawn of the 19th Century, but this starts to go away toward the end of the 16th century and by the 30 Years War in the 1630's-1650, tempered steel armor for example has become very rare and much more primitive iron armor has replaced it. We didn't start making tempered steel armor that good again until WW II (mainly for use in armoring military aircraft and tanks). Swords have become generally much cruder.

15th - early 16th Century Century swords

http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zornhau-zef-15-gross.jpg
http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zef-2.jpg
http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zornhau-zef-7-gross.jpg
http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zornhau-zef-6-gross.jpg
http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zef-4.jpg

17th - 18th Century swords

http://www.trocadero.com/101antiques/items/592490/catphoto.jpg
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/8347/9753123_1.jpg?v=8CD1F0C00EC6930
http://www.thepirateslair.com/images/naval-nautical-antiques/17thcentury-solingen-cutlass-2.jpg

15th - early 16th Century helmets
http://www.hrp.org.uk/Assets/Headgear_closehelmet_1_playlist.jpg
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_29.158.11.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/23/20/2e/23202e51c26e9d8cc20a3e7c5a9fbba8.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/bidsquare_assets/images.skinnerinc.com/full-782-833782.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/59/ee/d8/59eed8770a77c47c02918cfbac42b49b.jpghttp://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/160458038-armet-of-king-henry-viii-1511-14-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=a49mKc3LJSzvBknr%2BCW0f%2FUWYe2RNeuWRqM0E2SsAQI% 3D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/HJRK_A_110_-_Sallet_combination_of_Maximilian_I,_c._1495.jpg

17th Century helmets
http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d53564/a_helmet_from_a_funerary_achievement_mid-17th_century_d5356499h.jpg
http://www.militarytrader.com/wp-content/uploads/mo-Cromwellian-helmet.jpg
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/13959/14160208_4.jpg?v=8CF74F5306A1F40
http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/images/imagestore/image550x550/481.jpg
http://p2.la-img.com/425/23161/8233509_1_l.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/90/a3/ec/90a3ecae03f0c0cba09dc7c7fb2330f1.jpg
http://images-cdn.ecwid.com/images/1583227/126151348.jpg

17th Century firearms are predominantly limited to primitive smoothbore matchlock arquebus and musket even though rifling and much more sophisticated wheel-locks, snaplocks etc. (like you can see in that excellent thread I posted a link to upthread) had been around for over a century.


Not that they couldn't and did still produce very nice weapons in the 17th Century, but they became much less common on the battlefield and even princely weapons and armor was sometimes crude (though there are some very nice hunting weapons (http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server5100/7g4m0/products/108164/images/555548/P1800424__14916.1418660743.1280.1280.JPG?c=2) in particular from the 17th Century, as well as dueling weapons like rapiers (http://www.antique-arms.net/images/17th%20century%20rapier%20hoppe3.jpg)). The point though is that the mass-production of really good military kit declined a lot from around 1550-1650. There was a major change in the economic, political, military, religious and social circumstances of Europe which had a general effect on the quality of military weapons, for the worse very generally speaking. This also corresponded with the replacement of relatively small armies of highly skilled professionals by much larger armies with a higher percentage of quickly trained, basically unskilled cannon fodder. (The thing is of course, these armies were quite effective in spite of being made up to a larger extent of cannon fodder)

And this big social / economic / political / military change is, I think, rather than any incompetence or limitations in the industrial capabilities of the period, what limited certain types of weapon development like breechlock firearms after they were developed in the late medieval era.

Anyway small to medium caliber breech lock cannon were very common from around 1400 onward and were in continuous use from that time onward especially on warships and boats.

Clocks weren't rare in the late medieval period either, mechanical clocks were already an important export item to China by the 15th Century and were in routine use in towns around the more urbanized parts of Europe. For example they used small mechanical clocks to time the shooters in shooting contests in Augsburg and Strasbourg since the 1440's.

G

[Cealocanth]

In a recent Deadlands game several of the players in my group had a dispute about buffalo hunting in the mid-to-late 19th century. We are generally agreed that the particular weapon of choice was one of a myriad of different kinds of 'buffalo rifle', most of which were high caliber and had quite a kick to them. What we're disputed on is how these rifles were used. Some claim that the rifles were used on stands, showing that firing from a long distance in a crouched posture would help to reduce the kick of the rifle, thus resulting in a more accurate shot and less harm to the user. The supporters of this usually point to sketches of buffalo hunters shooting from rifle stands at distant herds of buffalo. The other side claims that buffalo hunters didn't care about the kick and would hunt the creatures on horseback by running alongside them and shooting from relatively short range. They claim that the high powered shot would help compensate for the likelihood of missing because of shooting from horseback, and stirrups would keep the kick from throwing the rider off the horse. Once again, though, the best support this side can produce are sketches of hunters pointing rifles directly at buffalo skulls from nearby.

So, to those who are more experienced in high powered 19th century firearms than myself, which would be the most practical technique, and which one (or perhaps an entirely different technique) was used during the period?

[Gnoman]

Buffalo rifles weren't all that big, actually. THe most common were the .52 caliber (later .45-70) SHarps and the Remington Rolling Block (generally around .50 caliber), smaller than the standard military rifle of the American Civil War (.58 caliber rifle muskets). These could be fired like any other rifle, but were probably not used much on horseback due to the cumbersome length (horse cavalry used carbines, which are shorter weapons.

[rs2excelsior]

After the development of muskets (please look at the muskets from the 3.5 DMG if in doubt), what would be the next logical step in the development of gunpower technology?

If by "musket" you mean matchlock (I don't have a 3.5 DMG), the next step would be the wheel-lock. There were wheel-lock pistols and muskets, but they were much more difficult to make and maintain (not to mention more expensive) than matchlocks, so they never saw widespread service among armies. After that you have the flintlock, which came into widespread use around 1700-ish, I believe. Another big innovation was the steel ramrod: with wooden ramrods, it takes much longer to ram the bullet down, because if you use too much force the ramrod breaks. After that, you have percussion locks, rifling, and then breech-loading. The problem is that from their invention to the introduction of metallic cartridges, muskets are essentially the same weapon in 1500 and 1860, just that the latter are much more sophisticated in terms of firing mechanism, accuracy, etc.


Well, as far as line or general issue weapons goes the general trend seems to have been:
•Fire/matchlocks
•Wheel locks (I'm not sure how common these where on muskets. Most examples I've seen are horsepistols)
•Flintlocks (Brown Bess et al)
•Percussion locks
•Rifle muskets (Primarily Minié pattern weapons, but I believe other systems were adopted in a few places)
•Paper cartridge breachloader (Dreyse, Chassepot and a few others)
•Metallic cartridge breachloader (Remington Rolling Block, Martini-Henry, etc)
•Repeating breachloader (Lebel, Kragh-Jørgensen, Mossin-Nagant)

Many of these are not mutually exclusive. Specifically, the weapons used in the American Civil War were largely rifled percussion locks. And to the list of paper cartridge breechloaders I would add several Civil War weapons, most notably the Sharps rifle and various knock-offs thereof.

Basically, for a musket, you have a lock, a stock, and a barrel (yes, that is where the phrase came from). Aside from advances in metallurgy, the only main change in the barrel was rifling, and then the introduction of breechloading instead of muzzle-loading (at which point they arguably aren't muskets anymore). The stock changes very little, increasing basically in form and utility, but with no real major jumps in advancement. The lock (ignition system) is where the real change comes into play.


Maybe more a linguistic question, but in a 19th century text I habe found the expression "Spike the Cannon". Would anyone know what that means?

If a nail wasn't handy, gunners had a pick they'd use to pierce bags of powder. That could be broken off in the touchhole, with the same effect.

Also, for field artillery, if you had a fire or a high enough cliff, they'd also destroy the gun carriages, making it much more difficult for the enemy to recover the gun tubes--which would still need a bunch of work to be fireable again, if you spiked them properly first.

[Mr. Mask]

Know cases of war elephants being used in a charge after the defeat of Hannibal? Someone reckoned there doesn't seem to be cases of it after Hannibal's defeat.

[Yora]

Perhaps in the mediterranean, but I belive they were used in India for much longer.

[GraaEminense]

Wikipedia says the Mongols faced elephant charges as late as the 1200s at least.

[Kiero]

Know cases of war elephants being used in a charge after the defeat of Hannibal? Someone reckoned there doesn't seem to be cases of it after Hannibal's defeat.

Hannibal didn't even really use war elephants (since all but one died crossing the Alps). If you want to see examples of them being used in battle, in meaningful numbers, you have to look to the Wars of the Diadochi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Diadochi).

[Gnoman]

The king of Siam offered Lincoln a supply of war elephants during the American Civil War. He declined to accept (http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/lincoln-rejects-the-king-of.html).

[Incanur]

Note at least some mass-produced 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century swords were made of decent metal (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html) and performed well in the field. And at least some 15th- and 16th-century swords were rather low-quality.

[Thiel]

Many of these are not mutually exclusive. Specifically, the weapons used in the American Civil War were largely rifled percussion locks. And to the list of paper cartridge breechloaders I would add several Civil War weapons, most notably the Sharps rifle and various knock-offs thereof.
Certainly, but as for mass issue weapons it's more or less the order it took place in.
It's in no means an exhaustive list, that would be a major scholarly work all by itself, and there's all kinds of weird guns out there that had more advanced features, but they weren't made in any great numbers or adopted by militaries.
Things like the Ferguson rifle, which was a breachloading flintlock with an interrupted screw breach. Unfortunately it cost about 25 times as much as a Brown Bess to make and required sophisticated machinery that only few of the suppliers had access to.
Or the various revolver longarms that had a nasty tendency to take the shooters off-hand off when they chain fired.

On a related note I suspect the early breachloaders fell out of use for much the same reason as the naval breachloaders of the 1860ies did. They couldn't make the breach strong enough to handle the increasing pressures contemporary muzzle loaders could. This is mostly an issue for artillery obviously. I suspect economy also had a deal to say, especially for the the infantry weapons. Despite all their best workmanship there's just no way to make a "beerstein" style breach gas tight, at least not without using a big mallet to drive in the locking wedge and that would be rather awkward to carry around for your average hand gunner. That means gas is going to leak out and that leads to throat erosion which is going to be quite an issue since there's no real way to repair it. You'd have to replace the barrel fairly often and given the way these guns were constructed that means replacing the entire gun which gets very expensive very fast. The last reason I can think of is weight. The frame, chamber and wedge setup is heavy and awkward to carry around and it doesn't really give you that much of an increase in rate of fire.

[Galloglaich]

On a related note I suspect the early breachloaders fell out of use for much the same reason as the naval breachloaders of the 1860ies did. They couldn't make the breach strong enough to handle the increasing pressures contemporary muzzle loaders could. This is mostly an issue for artillery obviously. I suspect economy also had a deal to say, especially for the the infantry weapons. Despite all their best workmanship there's just no way to make a "beerstein" style breach gas tight, at least not without using a big mallet to drive in the locking wedge and that would be rather awkward to carry around for your average hand gunner. That means gas is going to leak out and that leads to throat erosion which is going to be quite an issue since there's no real way to repair it. You'd have to replace the barrel fairly often and given the way these guns were constructed that means replacing the entire gun which gets very expensive very fast. The last reason I can think of is weight. The frame, chamber and wedge setup is heavy and awkward to carry around and it doesn't really give you that much of an increase in rate of fire.

But those breach-loader cannon were used in large numbers for 600 years, and were by all accounts highly effective. They were standard armament on warships alongside all the developments for the larger cannon. So I think there is a "gas leak" in your logic on this specific point so to speak)

Speaking of the usefulness of old breach-loading cannon and also the earlier discussed issue of precision bronze parts, this is another good example of both, an early-16th Century Portuguese rapid firing breach-loader, designed for a pintle-mount, 40mm caliber

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=78692&stc=1

and a quite snugly fitting 15th Century bronze gun from Nuremberg

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=50767&stc=1

as for the snugness of the fit, you can get an idea of it from this video where a guy is working the action of a 1540 wheellock breach-loading arquebus or carbine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSyxpvIZXxY


G

[Galloglaich]

True, but we DO NOT see any signs of advanced craftmanship at the sites from around the BC/AD turn and several hundred years foreward. I would like for you to show examples of "Germanic" or continued Celtic production of high class weapons in central Europe in the period 1AD-300AD. As i said the Celtic world (the central European one, barring the British isle for a moment) broke down after the Roman conquest of Spain and Gaul.

Ok this is news to me, I thought the opposite but my information on sword making in Europe from 2nd - 7th century AD may be dated, I think you know more about the issue than I do and I'm going to try to learn a bit more about it. I have that book on the way I'm looking forward to learning more about this, I concede the point for now!



Yes, it is. That was my point. The border from slavery to serfdom, and further to tenant peasants, and even free peasants is not easily defined. It is especially difficult when dealing with multiple millennia of time and many different regions.

On this at least, we agree - it is very complex and variegated across time and space.



Two thing: the three field system is not that complex when first discovered and can easily be practised by serfs, as it was done for centuries after the medieval period as well. So can animal husbandry and farming with "iron tools".

By iron tools I mean for example the wheeled iron plow, the iron shod plod, iron or iron shod shovels and picks and so forth. None of this seems complex by modern standards but there were still many peasants in Eastern Europe at the time of the Osteidlung who did not have these skills, this was noted for example by the Teutonic Order and the Livonian Order who sought Flemish, Frisian, Swedish, Polish, Czech and German peasants over Kashubian, native Prussian (Liv, Lett etc.) and Ruthenians who at that time didn't have the skills, and therefore didn't produce as much grain and livestock from a given allotment of property.



The black death: banning young men from moving was a result of the black death as well - one possibility is trying to attract people, another is preventing them from leaving. The nobles made sure the oldest peasant son took over the fathers contract, any remaining sons could be delegated to farms/land empty after the black death. It is not my understanding that peasant life became universaly better after the Black death (it did not in Denmark and I am sure Denamrk is not the only example of this - I know "German"-peasants was forced to settle on empty Jutlandish soils in the 15th and 16th century), but the Black death did offer cause for changes for either better or worse.

You are speaking of specific cases while I'm referring to broader trends, and I think you are mixing up some issues of conditions of people in terms of rights and responsibilities. Medieval law was more complex and granular than modern law is. Citizenship in a modern state confers a broad ranged package of rights and responsibilities which are the same for everybody (at least in theory). In the medieval world, I might own your land, but you own the right to fish in a lake on my land. Somebody else might own the hunting rights in both of our forests and a third person (or institution, like say a monastery) might own the right for both of us to grind our grain in their mill.

When assessing the living standard and rights of a peasant you have basically three factors:

http://www.cpx.republika.pl/chalupa%20w%20lipcach.jpg
Bauer's house in Poland, 16th Century

1) Wealth - If a peasant has 20 or 40 acres or more, and livestock, he has real power. He probably has servants of his own, and armed men as supporters. If he has nothing, not even a cottage and a small garden, he is really at the mercy of someone else to survive. He can only make a living as a day laborer. If this is combined with the inability to travel (more on that in a second) it effectively means serfdom or slavery. But if he or she isn't blocked from travel, then they can find a living in another place.

2) Obligations - Just as property rights can be very complicated in medieval law as compared to modern law, so too can obligations. Both Gentry / Knights and peasants were usually obligated to serve a Lord in a military capacity when necessary, this goes back to Carolingian times when the lines between petty nobles and peasants was more blurred. Peasants also typically owe some days out of the year during harvest time to help with the harvest on the Lord's demesne (his / her / it's* personal land), and on other periods to fix walls, levee's , bridges and so on. This doesn't have anything to do with being a serf.

3) Freedoms and Rights Rights too are parceled out on an individual basis. A peasant or even a knight in a given area might have the right to farm certain land but not to fish or hunt on it, which might be owned by somebody else. This doesn't always go from commoner to noble in the ways you might expect. For example in 1457 Duke Eric II of Pomerania, in the land of Pomerania not far from the Danish border (and I believe related to the Danish Royal Family) learned a lesson on where he could and couldn't hunt (quoting the wiki:)

In August 1457, Eric was hunting in the forests near Horst, belonging not to his lands, but to the Hanseatic city of Greifswald. In further disrespect of the city's rights he ordered local peasants to aid him. Greifswald's mayor Heinrich Rubenow led the burghers of Greifswald and Stralsund in an attempt to arrest Eric. Although the burghers captured his guards, Eric managed to escape. Yet, by now he was not only opposed by his co-ruling Pomeranian dukes, but also by the Pomeranian cities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_II,_Duke_of_Pomerania

There were many other rights besides hunting and fishing- the rights to establish weights and measures, the rights to hold markets, the rights to travel, the rights to keep and bear arms, the rights to mill grain, the rights to build bridges and ferries, etc. etc. What defined a serf was lacking the right to travel. So whereas a peasant who is born poor or becomes poor due to a raid or bad harvests or what have you, and becomes economically dependent on a richer peasant or a member of the gentry as a servant or a share cropper, may effectively be a lot like a serf, if that same peasant can travel he can change his life. This is how the cities maintained and grew their populations during the high-to-late medieval period, it's how much of the lands of Eastern and East-Central Europe were repopulated after the devastations of the Mongols and the Black Death during the Ostiedlung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung

..and how many previously unpopulated zones such as the higher elevations of mountain ranges were populated when salt, gold, silver, copper and other valuable minerals were found there. For example the famous "Giant Mountains" in Silesia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krkono%C5%A1e#Colonization

From the wiki:

Until the Middle Ages the mountain range and its foothills were an unpopulated place of deep, impenetrable forests. The first traces of human settlements probably appear in the Duchy of Bohemia near two provincial paths between Bohemia and Silesia in the 12th century.

The first wave of colonization by Slavonic settlers goes back to the 13th century in the Kingdom of Bohemia, but only includes the foothills, whereas the ridges of the mountain range were still unaffected. The second wave of colonization (Ostsiedlung) during the later 13th century to the foothills was carried out mostly by German settlers, which first colonized the Silesian northern part, where farming conditions were better, and later the southern Bohemian part along the Elbe and Úpa river. Many agriculture settlements, market and handcraft communities and cities were founded during this time, which formed a base for the further colonization of the mountain range.

The first people who explored the inner parts of the Krkonoše were treasure hunters and miners looking for gold, silver, ores and valuable stones, mainly on the Silesian side. In the 14th and 15th centuries foreigners who spoke a different language than German came to the mountains. These foreigners were called "Wallen" (see Walha), and their journeys to the "treasure" deposits were recorded in so called "Wallenbüchern" (Wallen books). Mysterious orientation signs from these "Wallen" are visible to this day, especially on the northern side of the mountains.

This is a very good, in depth and detailed article (well, really just a forum post but very well researched) on Peasants in Poland in the 16th Century, as kind of a book end to the Domesday statistics. You'll notice that by far the majority fall in the middle status of peasants, the Kmiecie or Yokel, who own around 10-20 acres of land and are free. The serfs, cottagers etc. form a small minority. In the German zones, he notes, the wealthier Baur (Gbur etc.) class of peasants are more common. This was also true in much of lower Saxony.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?403582-Polish-Peasants-and-Countryside-in-16th-Century



Breakdown of population (both rural and urban) of several provinces of Poland in 16th century

Greater Poland:

Peasantry - 68,9 percent
Townsmen - 25,2 percent
Priesthood - 0,3 percent
Nobility - 5,6 percent

Lesser Poland:

Peasantry - 68,9 percent
Townsmen - 26,3 percent
Priesthood - 0,2 percent
Nobility - 4,6 percent

Mazovia:

Peasantry - 62,4 percent
Townsmen - 14,1 percent
Priesthood - 0,1 percent
Nobility - 23,4 percent

Royal Prussia:

Peasantry - 59,3 percent
Townsmen - 36,5 percent
Priesthood - 1,2 percent
Nobility - 3,0 percent

Categories of rural population of part of territory of Rzeczpospolita** by the end of 16th century

You can see here that in all parts of Poland except Royal Prussia land-owning free peasants (yokels) make up the largest proportion of the population. In Royal Prussia, the richest part of Poland, the largest part of the population (36%) is urbanized so there are fewer land-owners, but many of the landless rural people live in market villages which are effectively suburbs of the towns.

Greater Poland:

Yokels - 53,0 percent
Smallholders and landless - 29,0 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 10,0 percent
Farm nobility - 4,1 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 3,5 percent
Priesthood - 0,4 percent

Lesser Poland:

Yokels - 48,1 percent
Smallholders and landless - 33,3 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 12,0 percent
Farm nobility - 5,3 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 1,0 percent
Priesthood - 0,3 percent

Mazovia:

Yokels - 41,1 percent
Smallholders and landless - 24,8 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 6,7 percent
Farm nobility - 5,5 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 21,7 percent
Priesthood - 0,2 percent

Royal Prussia:

Yokels - 39,2 percent
Smallholders and landless - 43,4 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 9,9 percent
Farm nobility - 3,1 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 2,1 percent
Priesthood - 2,3 percent



SO in many ways the medieval period was a period of gradual decline of freedom for the majority (in Denmark), even though the peasants was granted rights at several points, this was true for the freeholders, who became fewer and fewer, and the nobles got more rights over the tenants who became more common.

This may indeed be the case in Denmark, as it was in some other places like Ruthenia and Southern Spain. But with all due respect Denmark is a small place and this was not the general trend.



Partly true yes, but remember the King was seen as the protector of the peasants, and they generally were more free in the districts he rules directly rather than the ones with a noble in between. It was also the king who several time banned the harshest serfdom, and Christian II (the one who finally lost Sweden) was the one banning the buying and selling of serfs. Beside he lost Sweden due to him killing of a host of nobles, not peasants (though I suppose he was univeraly disliked in Sweden). In general the Kings were pro liberty for towns and peasants, while the nobles were against (since that would give merchants and peasants more influence on behalf of the nobles obviously - while the Kings had an interest in several equally strong groups).

But the precursor to losing Sweden started 20 years earlier with the Dalarna rising of 1434 I mentioned earlier evicted the Danish King Eric of Pomerania. This was led by a noble but was made up of Swedish peasants and miners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbrekt_rebellion



Generally true - but depopulation is a strong word.... at least in number of villages etc the area didnt experience a depopulation at all (the number of settlements near Copnehagen seem to grow throughout the medieval period). The south-eastern parts had suffered much more in that respect during the vendish/slavic piracy in the centuries before.

Well, those people in Estonia and etc. call themselves Baltic Vikings and claim they were just continuing the Danish Viking tradition which the Danes left behind when they converted to Christianity ;)




I am not convinced by your maps/data, since I understand the freedom mentioned as most often referring to the the freedom of the freeholders. Serfdom/tenant farmers are also dominant in the post medieval Europe in both eastern and western areas. I do know that freedom was high in some regions, but it was an ever changing pattern relying on local conditions

Looking at your map, you have mainly CITIES on, and then a few pathes of other territories of freedom - funny how those regions are poor agricultural lands, distant to power centres or very inaccessible (mountains...) - huh?

My map only notes the actual completely autonomous peasants, like the Swiss, the Samogitians, or the peasant Republic (and Hanseatic League member) of Dithmarschen which was right next to the border of Denmark which you seem to keep forgetting about when talking about your German neighbors. Ordinary peasants were not autonomous but they weren't serfs either. You seem to be mixing the two things together, both are extremes in the condition of medieval populations.

Fully autonomous zones for rural people were pretty much always in the difficult type of terrain you mentioned: swamps, heavy forests, mountains and so on. There were a lot of places like that in Europe in the middle ages, but not enough for there to be vast numbers of autonomous peasants. The fact that there were any is quite interesting to me and not part of the narrative of the middle ages, which is why I put them on my map, but they were not a major factor in European politics or economy, at best they sometimes played an important regional role in military history since they tended to be good fighters (like the Swiss or the Samogitians).

But most peasants by the late medieval period were free and not serfs and did have some rights (including the rights to travel and own and bear arms) and personal wealth (including, often, enough money to buy their own arms and armor) because of other reasons, the switch to a cash economy, the fact that free peasants tend to generate more income than serfs do (except in certain very specific types of farms such as Latifundia, which only existed in certain areas) and Aristocrats and gentry were under a lot of pressure to keep up financially with the towns and the Kings and Princes. The Kings incidentally also usually supported liberal policies for the peasants, not out of kindness, but in order to have more money to crush their own nobility and to compete with other Kings and Princes. This continues until there are no nobles to compete with at which point the King is no longer friend to the peasant and serfdom returns (as you saw in France leading up to the French revolution)

G

* the Lord can also be a town or an Abbey
** Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

[Incanur]

Know cases of war elephants being used in a charge after the defeat of Hannibal? Someone reckoned there doesn't seem to be cases of it after Hannibal's defeat.

War elephants saw effective use in Asia into the 17th century if not later. In at least some cases they did well in close combat. For example, on of Akbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar)'s elephants supposedly (https://books.google.com/books?id=-5RHK4Ol15QC&pg=PA211&dq=war+elephant+killed+men+before+dying&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PZ-kVK6jFdLgoASr04DADg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=war%20elephant%20killed%20men%20before%20dying&f=false) killed 45 men in a battle in 1568. They had serious trouble against heavy artillery, though, as you would image.

[fusilier]

Maybe more a linguistic question, but in a 19th century text I habe found the expression "Spike the Cannon". Would anyone know what that means?

As already noted this is a particular way of disabling a cannon. By the 19th century the artilleryman's kit would often include special spikes that flared apart -- effectively blocking the vent, but without damaging the barrel. It was used when the cannon had to be disabled quickly (the battery was going to be overrun and captured), but also when they might expect to retake the guns. It prevents the enemy from immediately using them, but also doesn't require much work to get the gun functional again. More serious spikes could damage the vent-hole, but were also used.

The phrase "spiking the cannons" could be used more generically to mean disabling the cannon. A more serious way of disabling a cannon was pounding wooden plugs down the barrel. They would have to be laboriously burnt out in a very time consuming procedure.

[fusilier]

On a related note I suspect the early breachloaders fell out of use for much the same reason as the naval breachloaders of the 1860ies did. They couldn't make the breach strong enough to handle the increasing pressures contemporary muzzle loaders could. This is mostly an issue for artillery obviously.

Yeah, the early "large" naval breechloaders ("port-pieces") were designed for serpentine powder, and their effective ranges were shorter, indicating that they were designed for lower pressures -- see the table on effective ranges on the wikipedia entry for the Mary Rose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose

They fell out of use during the 16th century. However, breechloading swivel guns were common well into the 17th century before being replaced by muzzleloading varieties.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, the early "large" naval breechloaders ("port-pieces") were designed for serpentine powder, and their effective ranges were shorter, indicating that they were designed for lower pressures -- see the table on effective ranges on the wikipedia entry for the Mary Rose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose

They fell out of use during the 16th century. However, breechloading swivel guns were common well into the 17th century before being replaced by muzzleloading varieties.

Breechloading swivel gun, 19th Century

http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/MCoston/ironcannon1small.jpg

G

[Tobtor]

On this at least, we agree - it is very complex and variegated across time and space.

Well at least it is a good place for departure.


By iron tools I mean for example the wheeled iron plow, the iron shod plod, iron or iron shod shovels and picks and so forth. None of this seems complex by modern standards but there were still many peasants in Eastern Europe at the time of the Osteidlung who did not have these skills, this was noted for example by the Teutonic Order and the Livonian Order who sought Flemish, Frisian, Swedish, Polish, Czech and German peasants over Kashubian, native Prussian (Liv, Lett etc.) and Ruthenians who at that time didn't have the skills, and therefore didn't produce as much grain and livestock from a given allotment of property.

Yes, I know what you mean by iron tools... tListing these innovations does not contribute to your arguments argument.
he problem I had with your statements was that I felt you made a statement connecting freedom with skill. I wasn't contesting the development of iron tools, three field system or animal husbandry, but that serfs could not do "advanced" agriculture including the things you mention. I merely stated that serfs did so for many years in many places and that when first introduced to an area can easily be maintained.

"farmers with a lot of skill, those who knew how to implement the Three Field system, how to drain the land properly, who were good at animal husbandry, who had craft skills to make and use a lot of iron tools"

None of this require a lot of skill, at least not beyond what serfs can do.




You are speaking of specific cases while I'm referring to broader trends, and I think you are mixing up some issues of conditions of people in terms of rights and responsibilities. Medieval law was more complex and granular than modern law is. Citizenship in a modern state confers a broad ranged package of rights and responsibilities which are the same for everybody (at least in theory). In the medieval world, I might own your land, but you own the right to fish in a lake on my land. Somebody else might own the hunting rights in both of our forests and a third person (or institution, like say a monastery) might own the right for both of us to grind our grain in their mill.

I do not think I am mixing anything up, and am well aware of your points (as with the definitions of the groups, I agree that it is a complex matter), it just doesnt changes my points.


This is a very good, in depth and detailed article (well, really just a forum post but very well researched) on Peasants in Poland in the 16th Century, as kind of a book end to the Domesday statistics. You'll notice that by far the majority fall in the middle status of peasants, the Kmiecie or Yokel, who own around 10-20 acres of land and are free. The serfs, cottagers etc. form a small minority. In the German zones, he notes, the wealthier Baur (Gbur etc.) class of peasants are more common. This was also true in much of lower Saxony.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?403582-Polish-Peasants-and-Countryside-in-16th-Century

Very interesting indeed, since all the books articles I have found state that Serfdom was only introduced in Poland in the 14th century and then increased in the following centuries. However the forum post goes very little into details on the status/regulations of the peasants, and more into size of his plot. Unfortunately I cannot read what it links, since it is in Polish.

It is also unclear if it is number of "households" or "inhabitants" that are calculated (many statistics based an tax is household based, thus will never show the stableboy, servant girl etc).

Wikipedia indicate that peasant rights where reduced in the 14-16th century, reducing from free farmers into serfdom (or something that resembles it....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Poland

Every other source I can find supports that the peasant in late medieval Poland gradually lost influence and rights (the right to own land for example...).

So I think Poland is not the best example to show that freedom got better in the late medieval period.... rather somewhat like Denmark the peasant population had imposed restrictions on its freedom to move and gained further obligations to their lords.


Well, those people in Estonia and etc. call themselves Baltic Vikings and claim they were just continuing the Danish Viking tradition which the Danes left behind when they converted to Christianity ;)

Ohh I think they are perfectly correct, they were Vikings. I was arguing that that is the only part of the medieval period we had a depopulation in eastern Denmark (or the southern part of Eastern Denmark). Care to back up your claim that the coalition of Cologne "depopulated much of Eastern Denmark"?


But most peasants by the late medieval period were free and not serfs and did have some rights (including the rights to travel and own and bear arms) and personal wealth (including, often, enough money to buy their own arms and armor) because of other reasons, the switch to a cash economy, the fact that free peasants tend to generate more income than serfs do (except in certain very specific types of farms such as Latifundia, which only existed in certain areas) and Aristocrats and gentry were under a lot of pressure to keep up financially with the towns and the Kings and Princes.

In western Europe, yes. Also the peasants in Denmark kept the right to travel and bear arms, they where just imposed the obligation to take over their fathers contracts.

But before 11/1200 the majority in Denmark would have been free peasants owning their own land (freed slaves often the exception) and having no nobles above them (other than the King), but increasing taxes in the later medieval period (the King wanted money rent rather than them standing as troops as had previously their chief obligation in the Viking age army), forced many into turning their lands over to the nobles, and becoming tenants (not true serfs I suppose, by your definitions). But increasing restrictions were imposed to mobility in the late medieval period. So from 12-1600 the truly free Danish peasants had became tenants of the nobles and only around 2% peasant owned their own land.

Denmark wasn't the only case of this. It happened all over central and eastern Europe as well. The serfdom might have been abolished (or had never existed), but the free peasants lost a allot of their freedom.

This post Black Dead also happened in parts of Germany, if Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World (found through encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Serfdom.aspx)):

"The persistence, indeed intensification, of serfdom in Germany at the end of the Middle Ages was in part a reaction to the late medieval agrarian crisis. Thus, in the German southwest, ecclesiastical lordships in particular began to impose new mobility restrictions and extend the scope and weight of death duties during the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries in order to retain control over the thinning ranks of the tenantry. This seignorial reaction ultimately collapsed because of determined peasant resistance—most spectacularly the aforementioned Peasants' War of 1524–1526—and most lordships came to an accommodation with their subjects guaranteeing peasant inheritance rights and capping the disabilities imposed by servility."

So the attempts to keep the peasants at their locality also caused restriction on German (parts thereof, ther eis of course no "Germany") mobility (at least until the 1520'ies depending on where you want to end the medieval period).

So I will stand by my previous post, stating that yes, in many places freedom got higher after the black death, but in other regions the lords tried to prevent the peasants from leaving for the same reason thei gained their freedom in others. Some places like in eastern Europe it saw the introduction of what became the later serfdom in those regions, while in other places like Denmark or Germany it never went as harsh, but still with new restrictions.

But as we agreed on in the beginning it is very complex, what is called something in one village in one century might in practise mean something completely different in another village or another century. For example if your obligation to your lord is a few days or a even a couple of weeks tenure at a specified time of year, and that the fine for not showing up is low, then you can easily move and just pay the fine every year (according to medieval and early modern manor accounts this seemed to happen a lot), but if the tenure requires 2-3days every week and the fine is high then you cant. But legaly those two peasants might belong to the same class, have the same term applied to them.

Again (for clarification): I agree that in many parts the late medieval saw more freedom than in the previously period (my McKay et. all. "A History of World Societies" suggest 60% serfs in western Europe around 800AD, though that cannot include present day Scandinavia or Germany), but than in other regions the class of free peasants became fewer or less free. This was reaction to different situations and political developments.
At the same time I agree that freedom does give great dynamics, but I continue to see in your posts a exaggerated effect of this, de-evaluating the skills of slaves and serf farmers in some cases. Cases include Roman swords and three-field system.

[Galloglaich]

Yes, I know what you mean by iron tools... tListing these innovations does not contribute to your arguments argument.
he problem I had with your statements was that I felt you made a statement connecting freedom with skill. I wasn't contesting the development of iron tools, three field system or animal husbandry, but that serfs could not do "advanced" agriculture including the things you mention. I merely stated that serfs did so for many years in many places and that when first introduced to an area can easily be maintained.

"farmers with a lot of skill, those who knew how to implement the Three Field system, how to drain the land properly, who were good at animal husbandry, who had craft skills to make and use a lot of iron tools"

None of this require a lot of skill, at least not beyond what serfs can do.

I guess it's easy for you, but this is the reason cited why they asked for German (etc.) peasants to be brought in, and in order to entice them in, offered many benefits such as no taxes for a certain period of time, free land, and numerous freedoms and freedom from obligations. The wiki explains it pretty well (and it specifically mentions the three field system and the iron tools right here):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung#Rural_development

From the wiki:

Medieval West European agriculture saw some advances that were carried eastward in the course of the Ostsiedlung.[17] These included:

the three-field crop rotation, which replaced the lay farming previously common east in East Central Europe.[17] According to estimates by Henryk Łowmiański, as cited by Jan Maria Piskorski, this reduced the area of cultivated land needed to feed a family from 35 to 100 hectares (86 to 247 acres) (lay farming) to 4 to 8 hectares (9.9 to 19.8 acres) (three-field system); furthermore the growth of both warm- and cool-season grain increased the likelihood of a good harvest.[17]
the mouldboard plough with an iron blade, which replaced the scratch plough.[17] While this is stated by Jan Maria Piskorski in an 1997 essay summarizing the state of research[need quotation to verify], Paweł Zaremba in 1961 said that the mouldboard plough existed already on these territories before the German arrival.[18] However, scratch ploughs remained in use in Livonia until the 19th century and were used in France until that century as well.
iron spades, scythes and axes[17]
increased use of horses[17]
land amelioration techniques such as drainage and dike or levee construction. Sporadic use of fertilizers was likewise introduced






Very interesting indeed, since all the books articles (snip) Wikipedia indicate that peasant rights where reduced in the 14-16th century, reducing from free farmers into serfdom (or something that resembles it....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Poland

Every other source I can find supports that the peasant in late medieval Poland gradually lost influence and rights (the right to own land for example...).

I believe in the medieval period this refers chiefly to Ruthenian (Ukranian) peasants who were of the Greek / Orthodox faith and were repressed by the Poles intermittently, and (especially) by the Lithuanians* who had conquered vast stretches of what is now Belarus and the Ukraine in the late 14th Century, and had to rule over hundreds of thousands of new subjects many of whom were put into Latifundia type farms called Folwarks which relied on serf labor. That is why the rates of different social ranks varied so widely region by regions in Poland. In places like Royal Prussia the population was under Kulm law and remarkably free, as were peasants in Greater Poland and Little Poland. In what is today Belarus and places like Galicia, many of the (mostly Ruthenian) people were made into serfs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folwark

This happened sometimes as early as the 14th Century, but it was primarily a 16th Century phenomenon. To quote the wiki:

"Folwarks were primarily an early modern, post-feudal rural formation. They originated as land belonging to a feudal lord (early on a knight) and not rented out to peasants but worked by his own hired labor or servants. The peasants toiled on the lots they rented from the lord, but in addition were obliged to provide complimentary labor for the lord on his folwark, originally a few days per year. From the 16th century, the amount of this mandatory free labor was radically increased and szlachta sponsored legislation imposed rigid conditions on the peasants, such as the prohibition on worker's right to leave a village and seek a new lord."

This last part, being prohibited to leave and find a new place to live, is what really defines serfdom. But that was again, in the Early Modern period, not the medieval.

Of course many of those serfs in turn ran away to join the Cossacks, forming another major autonomous zone centered around the Zaporizhian Sich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhian_Sich



Ohh I think they are perfectly correct, they were Vikings. I was arguing that that is the only part of the medieval period we had a depopulation in eastern Denmark (or the southern part of Eastern Denmark). Care to back up your claim that the coalition of Cologne "depopulated much of Eastern Denmark"?

Philippe Dollinger, the foremost authority (at least accessible in English translation) on the Hanseatic League says that they 'Razed Copenhagen and 'ravaged the Danish and Norwegian coasts'

http://books.google.com/books?id=djGsAAAAIAAJ&q=confederation+of+cologne#v=snippet&q=copenhagen&f=false

so I guess you have to put qualifiers on the terms 'sacked' 'razed' and 'ravaged' but it does sound pretty bad to me.



In western Europe, yes. Also the peasants in Denmark kept the right to travel and bear arms, they where just imposed the obligation to take over their fathers contracts.

if they could leave the country and settle somewhere else, they weren't serfs. If they couldn't, they were.



"The persistence, indeed intensification, of serfdom in Germany at the end of the Middle Ages was in part a reaction to the late medieval agrarian crisis. Thus, in the German southwest, ecclesiastical lordships in particular began to impose new mobility restrictions and extend the scope and weight of death duties during the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries in order to retain control over the thinning ranks of the tenantry. This seignorial reaction ultimately collapsed because of determined peasant resistance—most spectacularly the aforementioned Peasants' War of 1524–1526—and most lordships came to an accommodation with their subjects guaranteeing peasant inheritance rights and capping the disabilities imposed by servility."

The rights of free peasants declined sharply in certain districts in Germany (parts of Swabia, or Brandenburg, for example, which later became the nucleus of the modern Prussian State, and in Austria which would become the nucleus of the Hapsburg dominated Sate of Austria Hungary) which is largely what actually triggered the German Peasants War of the 16th Century.

But contrary to your statements, to paraphrase one source, Serfdom was for the most part broken by the Black Death. Serfdom was de facto ended in France (France being the largest agricultural Kingdom in Europe with by far the most peasants) by a series of decrees from Philip IV, Louis X (1315), and Philip V (1318). With the exception of a few isolated cases, serfdom had ceased to exist in France by the 15th century. While there were places in Central Europe like Brandenburg and Austria where local conditions allowed serfdom to be re-introduced, these are balanced by places like lower Saxony, Switzerland, and Bohemia where it was rolled back pretty aggressively.

More importantly in the zones I was referring to in the original discussion, like Northern Italy, Flanders, the Rhineland, and so on, these were the places where the rural people and the urban people had a lot of rights and freedoms compared to the average inhabitant of the Roman Empire, and that was a big part of what characterized the differences between the Roman and late Medieval military systems. The former was rigid, based on indentured labor (20 year contracts plus conscripted Auxiliaries), heavily leaned on infantry, and fought by the book, granted a very sophisticated book indeed. The latter was fluid, based on free people, skilled labor hired or lent to a coalition under short term contracts, fought as combined arms units, with a dazzling variety of excellent weapons and equipment that was always changing and developing at an incredibly rapid pace.

Maybe the Romans had some pattern welded swords, but they didn't have arms or armor which compared with late medieval kit, and their armies would have had a hard time coping with a late medieval army, just as Roman Legions were at Adrianople or Carrhae, or the Byzantines were during the IVth Crusade.



So the attempts to keep the peasants at their locality also caused restriction on German (parts thereof, there is of course no "Germany") mobility (at least until the 1520'ies depending on where you want to end the medieval period).

In certain districts yes, but in others, the opposite trend was in play (especially in those districts were the towns were, generally speaking, but also in many princely and Church-owned domains). To cite one example I've noted before, in 1256 the city of Bologna bought the contracts of all serfs and slaves in their entire district and freed them so that they would be available for labor and for military support. This happened in numerous places around Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Paradisus



So I will stand by my previous post, stating that yes, in many places freedom got higher after the black death, but in other regions the lords tried to prevent the peasants from leaving for the same reason thei gained their freedom in others. Some places like in eastern Europe it saw the introduction of what became the later serfdom in those regions, while in other places like Denmark or Germany it never went as harsh, but still with new restrictions.At the same time I agree that freedom does give great dynamics, but I continue to see in your posts a exaggerated effect of this, de-evaluating the skills of slaves and serf farmers in some cases. Cases include Roman swords and three-field system.

I guess we really need some solid statistics for rates of serfdom across Europe in the late medieval period, so that we can compare it with the ratios of slaves, serfs and freedmen in Imperial Rome. I'll see what I can dig up so we can settle this definitively.

G

* Poland started gradually merging with Lithuania starting in the late 14th Century. Lithuania was militarily very successful but had a very small population compared to their Ruthenian, Mongol, and other subjects, which perhaps contributed to their reintroduction of the Latifundia

[Spiryt]

Very interesting indeed, since all the books articles I have found state that Serfdom was only introduced in Poland in the 14th century and then increased in the following centuries. However the forum post goes very little into details on the status/regulations of the peasants, and more into size of his plot. Unfortunately I cannot read what it links, since it is in Polish.

I don't think it's possible TBH.

Both serfdom and full fledged slavery was very prevalent in Poland in 11-14th century. Like pretty much elsewhere, generally, of course.

In 14th century polish feudal social states were generally still forming under Western influence, so 14th century would likely be introduction of 'formal' and rules about it, not serfdom itself.

[Mr. Mask]

This is a bit off topic, but I wanted to ask a bit about economic warfare which can lead to military warfare. I was talking it over with someone I know, and the conversation has left me more confused than I started. I asked about ways you could economically strangle another nation that was in strong defensive positions, and they essentially said that it was impossible outside of a modern economic structure. It seems like various modern techniques for destroying competition ought to work in older economies, though?

If you have a self-sufficient nation, than the only way to harm them is to have economic weight within their system, of course. Then you might be able to corner gold or grain, I figure? If they rely on outside trade, particularly food, giving incentives to their trading partners to sell at unreasonable prices or not sell at all seems like a possible strategy (though you are effectively declaring war)?

Another issue that came up in conversation, was that secretly undermining another economy used to be impossible. I'm not sure if that can really be the case. Is it?


Thank you to anyone who can elaborate this to me.

[Brother Oni]

If you have a self-sufficient nation, than the only way to harm them is to have economic weight within their system, of course.

Or you could artificially manufacture that demand - the Opium Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War) are a good example of that.

Basically China was pretty much self sufficient and wanted to restrict the influence of Western nations. With the massive demand of Chinese goods (silks, ceramics, tea), limited ways to pay for it (the Chinese only accepted silver, while most Western nations were on a gold standard), there was an untenable trade deficit. The British solved that by importing opium to the Chinese for silver.

The Chinese government at the time rejected calls to legalise opium trade and began confiscating it, sparking off the one sided conflict which the British won easily, resulting in the Unequal Treaties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty) and the formation of Hong Kong.


As I understand it though, if a nation is self sufficient then there's nothing you can do to it economically. If you cut off external trade then the same merchants will trade internally instead for reduced profits - Japan only had very limited external trade throughout the Edo and did comparatively well until Commodore Perry sailed in and forced them to open up at cannon point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy), sparking off a civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakumatsu).

If they're reliant on certain goods then stopping them trading for those goods are called sanctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sanctions). Unfortunately discussing the effectiveness of modern economic sanctions are board prohibited and the only ancient trade embargo I know of is the Megarian Decree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megarian_decree).

[Mr. Mask]

Were sanctions that uncommon in the past? That's kind of surprising, if so.

Thanks for mentioning those cases, Oni. They are good examples of how playing the defensive with economics works out.

[Tobtor]

I guess it's easy for you, but this is the reason cited why they asked for German (etc.) peasants to be brought in, and in order to entice them in, offered many benefits such as no taxes for a certain period of time, free land, and numerous freedoms and freedom from obligations. The wiki explains it pretty well (and it specifically mentions the three field system and the iron tools right here):

I never argued that the Ostsiedlung did not include these advantages, why your point is mood. I argued that all these advantages was in use in western Europe also by serf for centuries (most had been introduced by 800AD). They where used by serfs (in the west) before the Ostsiedlung, and they where used by serfs after the Ostsiedlungin the 16-19th century in some regions.


the mouldboard plough with an iron blade, which replaced the scratch plough.[17] While this is stated by Jan Maria Piskorski in an 1997 essay summarizing the state of research[need quotation to verify], Paweł Zaremba in 1961 said that the mouldboard plough existed already on these territories before the German arrival.[18] However, scratch ploughs remained in use in Livonia until the 19th century and were used in France until that century as well.

As you see the free peasants of France also at times used the scratch plough until the 19th century...
While the mouldboard plough (and especially the wheeled version) give very high input increases, some scholars argue that this is much more true on clay soils that need turning that the central European löss soils (is there an English word?). But even if this is not so, it does nothing to the argument that ploughs and three field system can be done by serfs.

Regarding drainage etc. In many places in northern Europe (at least, this is the region I have heard this stated for) the major drainage works were done on behalf of the church, using both tenants, serfs and rented labour, but rarely done by free peasants.


This last part, being prohibited to leave and find a new place to live, is what really defines serfdom

Well that is one definitions, different sources define it slightly different. Some define it by the requirement of tenants to do physical labour on the lords fields. This will in many cases of course prevent them from leaving (since they are by contract obliged to be there a certain number of days). However, sometimes these arrangement develops so that the fine for not showing up is fixed and very low. Then it will be quite easy to leave for a town (many medieval laws in Denmark and other areas have statutes that give the peasant freedom if he manages to stay in a town for a certain number of years, usually 3-8).

We are back to the point of it being very complex.

The Yokels in the post you refered to clearly had Feudal responsibilities, since it states about the "gardeners": "They were obliged to fulfill some feudal duties (but not as many as yokels) for the nobles.". Could the Yokels freely leave the nobles in the 15th/16th century (the era of the statistic presented)? I do not know, and the post you refer to doesnt give me a clue, but the wiki states this about peasants.

"The Piotrków Statutes (Polish: statuty piotrkowskie) were a set of laws enacted in the Kingdom of Poland in 1496. King John I Olbracht of Poland made a number of concessions to the szlachta, whose support he required in war. Among other things, the szlachta were relieved of certain taxes and were granted exclusive rights to high Church offices.

Additionally city burghers were forbidden from holding royal and national offices while the peasants were restricted in their mobility; according to the statutes, only one peasant was allowed to leave his home village per year and only one member of a peasant family was allowed to move to the towns."

All sources I can find the laws of the 14th and 15th century prevented/hindered peasants from owning land, and thus most of them would be tenants and be encompased by the general reduction in freedom of the mid 14th century and even more in the late 15th century statues

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org
it says:
"Serfdom reached Eastern European countries relatively later than Western Europe—it became dominant around the fifteenth century. Before that time, Eastern Europe had been much less populated than Western Europe. Serfdom developed in Eastern Europe after the Black Death epidemics, which not only stopped the migration but depopulated Western Europe. The resulting large land-to-labor ratio combined with Eastern Europe's vast, sparsely populated areas gave the lords an incentive to bind the remaining peasantry to their land. With increased demand for agricultural products in Western Europe during the later era when Western Europe limited and eventually abolished serfdom, serfdom remained in force throughout Eastern Europe during the seventeenth century so that nobility-owned estates could produce more agricultural products (especially grain) for the profitable export market."

The statements found on encyclopedia across the net, matches that of the history books that I have, so can anyone direct me to statements that claims that the in the 10-12th century relative free peasants of Poland, didnt became more "serfs" or had less freedom in the 15th century?

Note to Spiryt: "Both serfdom and full fledged slavery was very prevalent in Poland in 11-14th century. Like pretty much elsewhere, generally, of course."
Yes, slavery of course (at least in the 11th-12th century I would asume), but not serdom by G harsh definition of not allowed to leave the tenured land (so we are back to "its complex"). Also most sources seem to indicate that the class of free (landowning) peasants where greatly reduced in the 14-16th century - including the statistic G refered to, where it is clear that the Yokels are tenure peasants and not landowning peasants (thus they are affected by the reduction of freedom).


I believe in the medieval period this refers chiefly to Ruthenian (Ukranian) peasants who were of the Greek / Orthodox faith and were repressed by the Poles intermittently

I see no indication of this in any sourse, I have however seen that the inclusion of these grous into serfdom followed an already existing practise by the poles (however there claims were Ukranian and might be biased against Poland as oppressor).



This last part, being prohibited to leave and find a new place to live, is what really defines serfdom. But that was again, in the Early Modern period, not the medieval.
It was established in a series of statutes starting in the mid 14th century, finalized by around 1500, so while the affects might be post-medieval, the development happened in the late medieval period.


Of course many of those serfs in turn ran away to join the Cossacks, forming another major autonomous zone centered around the Zaporizhian

Coincidently my great grandfather had Cossack origin, so I have of personal interest read someting of them, but in general it is not that relevant to this thread.



Philippe Dollinger, the foremost authority (at least accessible in English translation) on the Hanseatic League says that they 'Razed Copenhagen and 'ravaged the Danish and Norwegian coasts'

But that says nothing about depopulation!

The razing is manily habours and castles/fortress, and it was mainly western Copenhagen that was razd. A major campoaign, no doubt, but nowhere near depopulation....


The rights of free peasants declined sharply in certain districts in Germany (parts of Swabia, or Brandenburg, for example, which later became the nucleus of the modern Prussian State, and in Austria which would become the nucleus of the Hapsburg dominated Sate of Austria Hungary) which is largely what actually triggered the German Peasants War of the 16th Century.

Yes, that was what I refered to...



But contrary to your statements, to paraphrase one source, Serfdom was for the most part broken by the Black Death. Serfdom was de facto ended in France (France being the largest agricultural Kingdom in Europe with by far the most peasants) by a series of decrees from Philip IV, Louis X (1315), and Philip V (1318). With the exception of a few isolated cases, serfdom had ceased to exist in France by the 15th century. While there were places in Central Europe like Brandenburg and Austria where local conditions allowed serfdom to be re-introduced, these are balanced by places like lower Saxony, Switzerland, and Bohemia where it was rolled back pretty aggressively.

How in the world is that contrary to my statements?????

My statement was
"So I will stand by my previous post, stating that yes, in many places freedom got higher after the black death, but in other regions the lords tried to prevent the peasants from leaving for the same reason thei gained their freedom in others. Some places like in eastern Europe it saw the introduction of what became the later serfdom in those regions, while in other places like Denmark or Germany it never went as harsh, but still with new restriction"

Where have I denied that serfdom declined in the late medieval period in England and France (they are part of my "many places freedom got higher after the black death"), my statement also wirte that is was mainly in eastern Europe and some instances in the "middle zone (Denmark/Germany) were cases of decreased freedom was seen.

Your statement was on the other hand "that a small percentage of the population of Europe (outside of the Ottoman or Russian zones) were serfs in the 15h Century", and "In the late medieval period, particularly after the disruptions caused by the catastrophe of the Black Death, serfdom very generally speaking was rare". I came with one example (Denmark) and your respond was that it was an outlier, but know that outlier is joined by Poland (and Ukraine, Lithuania...), Brendenburg, Swabia, Austria...

The problem is, I think, that the narative is mostly a western one, based by the very thorough and researched England (and France fits the model as well), but if the rest of Europe is included it become more complex (not contrary). Some regions like northern Italy the Serfdom had been abandoned before the Black Death (and was always rare there?) and in the zone outside the early feudal regions of France, England and (northern?) Spain, serfdom sometimes came as the result of the black death.


I never claimed serfdom was dominant in Europe post black death, just that in some regions, especially east of the Rhine, it did became more common, and definitely more than a few percent.

A note to Mr mask: look into the Hansaetic dealings with Denmark if you want older cases of trade wars, sometimes there were "hot war", but in other trade blockades was enough. An in popular though neglected resourse is salt: in Scandinavia it is the chief preservation method and the Hanseatich had control of the salt trade.

[snowblizz]

As I understand it though, if a nation is self sufficient then there's nothing you can do to it economically. If you cut off external trade then the same merchants will trade internally instead for reduced profits - Japan only had very limited external trade throughout the Edo and did comparatively well until Commodore Perry sailed in and forced them to open up at cannon point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy), sparking off a civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakumatsu).

If they're reliant on certain goods then stopping them trading for those goods are called sanctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sanctions). Unfortunately discussing the effectiveness of modern economic sanctions are board prohibited and the only ancient trade embargo I know of is the Megarian Decree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megarian_decree).

Quite honestly, no one is really that self-sufficient. Really it comes down to how to define self-sufficient. Basic needs yes, but there tends to be something. The further we go of course the more those things come into existence.

There are certainly is things you can do. Keep in mind that it is not that easy to just change markets. Your internal markets may not be able to absorb the goods (at all even) and more people are sharing a smaller pie.

Mercantilism as a "system" (although should be pointed out it isn't necessarily a planned system way back when) hurts purportedly self-sufficient economies.

Various colonial powers would limit opportunities to trade with their colonies, that is a type of economic "warfare" hurting "self-sufficient" economies. So the Navigation Acts are sanctions. I'm pretty sure there are many various types, I feel I've seen them here and there. Another type of sanciton is the limiting of services/trade (craft) and goods, trying to hold monopolies on making certain goods eg. And trying to figure out that (technology, items, knowledge, plants, animals etc), i.e. industrial espionage is a way to damage your "adversary's" economy.

It would definitely not ahve been impossible to undermine someones economy. Almost all beside the stone age have used a currency of sorts. Most of those could probably be faked. Flood the market with that and it will lead to a great upheaval. Mint fake goldcoins and introduce those (though most rules were already way ahead in that game:smallbiggrin:) and the gold standard will falter. Take huge loans from them and default. Oops.

Basically it doesn't exactly matter if the economy isn't modern, it really comes down to how open the economy is in what degree you can influence it.

[Galloglaich]

I never argued that the Ostsiedlung did not include these advantages, why your point is mood. I argued that all these advantages was in use in western Europe also by serf for centuries (most had been introduced by 800AD). They where used by serfs (in the west) before the Ostsiedlung, and they where used by serfs after the Ostsiedlungin the 16-19th century in some regions.

You are still completely missing my point. The authorities in Central Europe, including the Kings of Poland, Hungary and Bohemia, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and the Teutonic Order, brought German (and etc.) immigrants in because (according to them, in their own words which we have preserved) they had these skills and the locals didn't. This was a very common migration pattern, also used to populate new cities. One famous example is the letters of Gediminas, the then pagan Duke of Lithuania, inviting artisans and people with various skills to come to Lithuania and live tax-free and with many rights, including the free right of their religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_Gediminas

But more specifically to the skilled peasants with the skills like knowing the three field system, using the iron tools and how to drain land and so on, we have very detailed tax records of the Teutonic Knights showing how they sought out, brought in and gave more privileges to German (etc.) peasants because they had the skills and as a result, produced more taxable income. This is just an established fact, that is how and why most of that population was brought into the Eastern part of Central Europe.

Yes these things could also be taught to serfs and it was also done. But it required a lot more supervision (and money) to set up Latifundia or Folwarks, and only worked well on certain types of land with certain types of crops. In the aftermath of the Prussian Crusades the Teutonic Order had severe manpower shortages and initially found it easier to just bring in free peasants (with the lure of special rights that further enhanced their freedom) who could do it without supervision. This may have been a mistake ultimately since the Teutonic Knights suffered from a revolution by their own subjects in the 15th Century which ultimately cost them most of their land, whereas the Livonian Order which relied more on serfdom, persisted, in much weakened form, quite a bit longer.



As you see the free peasants of France also at times used the scratch plough until the 19th century...

Yes and people who lived in places where the peasants farmed that way were eager to bring in more skilled peasants who used the more advanced methods



Regarding drainage etc. In many places in northern Europe (at least, this is the region I have heard this stated for) the major drainage works were done on behalf of the church, using both tenants, serfs and rented labour, but rarely done by free peasants.

You are wrong. Going back to the millennium (1,000 AD) through the high medieval period, the Cistercian order specifically did a lot of important drainage projects, and pioneered the technologies related to the practice, but the Cistercians were losing steam by the 15th Century and peasants from low lying areas like those Dithmarschen peasants near the Danish border, as well as others like the Rustringer, and various Dutch, Frisian and low-Saxon clans (among others) became very skilled at draining marshes. Half of Holland and a good deal of northern Germany were actually reclaimed from the sea by these people. They were sought after as colonists in the Ostsiedlung specifically for that reason - but also long after the Ostsiedlung was a distant memory.

I have to do some work in my day job in a rather miserable oil town in southeast Texas called Nederland which was settled by Dutch "farmers" (peasants) specifically because they knew how to drain the swampy land. Most stayed briefly until the end of their contract and quickly left because trust me, it's a crummy area. But this trend of bringing in skilled peasants with special enticements goes WAY back and probably still continues to this day in some places in Asia. Breton and Norman peasants were brought to Nova Scotia and many of them later made it to Louisiana for the same reason - now known as the Cajuns.



(many medieval laws in Denmark and other areas have statutes that give the peasant freedom if he manages to stay in a town for a certain number of years, usually 3-8).

Actually the rule in the entire Holy Roman Empire and almost every major town in Poland, Bohemia, Hungary or Austria, was one year and a day. The saying "Stadtluft macht frei" represented the traditional rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtluft_macht_frei

The wiki says that this was supposedly abolished in 1231 but that brings up the real issue of why moving meant freedom. Once you are behind city walls your former landlord has no way to get you. By the late medieval period towns had power which more than rivaled most nobles, and many towns routinely defied even the Princes and the Emperor.

The city of Bremen for example went to war over this very issue of serfs coming to town in 1356. Bremen had lost a great deal of population from the Black Death (for them around 1350) and was repopulating the town by bringing in rural immigrants, many of them serfs of a regional prince called the Count of Hoya. The nearby Count of Hoya was suffering from the loss of many of his serfs, and started to come to the town several times per year to demand the return of his subjects of payment for them in cash. The law was on his side because he always came before the year was up, and he took hundreds of serfs home with him in chains on each visit. In 1356 a mob, outraged by these continued seizures, barged into the senate chamber and demanded war against the count. The Bremen senate gave in to the public demand against their will, and went to war. The city lost one initial battle against the Count, then failed to capture one of his castles, but then captured a larger castle called Thedinghausen which was a major blow to the count. After that his power in the region was drastically reduced and the city of Bremen became more powerful, eventually reaching the status of a regional Prince.

(Source: Chronicles of Three Free Cities (https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofthre00king) P. 79)



We are back to the point of it being very complex.

Well, yes, complex enough that we can argue holes in each others positions without a general or realistic sense of perspective. For that we'll need to dig up some academic papers, Wikipedia and old encyclopedias aren't going to settle the issue to anybodies satisfaction.



"The Piotrków Statutes (Polish: statuty piotrkowskie) were a set of laws enacted in the Kingdom of Poland in 1496.

1496 is the end of the medieval period, but more importantly in Poland, there are different laws in different regions, and the Central authority is intentionally by the nature of the structure of their government, very weak. The szlachta (Polish nobility) is the largest (by percentage of the population) in Europe, comprising as much as 20% of the population in some areas, and many of these people are mixed into the families of the peasants.



All sources I can find the laws of the 14th and 15th century prevented/hindered peasants from owning land, and thus most of them would be tenants and be encompased by the general reduction in freedom of the mid 14th century and even more in the late 15th century statues

And yet, most Polish peasants owned at least half a hide of land at that time.


including the statistic G refered to, where it is clear that the Yokels are tenure peasants and not landowning peasants (thus they are affected by the reduction of freedom).

You are incorrect, they were land owners.



It was established in a series of statutes starting in the mid 14th century, finalized by around 1500, so while the affects might be post-medieval, the development happened in the late medieval period.

As the passage I quoted earlier from the Folwark wiki noted, this process you are referring to happened primarily in the 16th century and wasn't fully developed in the districts where it happened until the 17th - when it began to trigger vicious uprisings of the Ruthenian peasants and when it began to be extended to them, specifically the Cossacks, which ultimately led to the Deluge and the breaking of the back of Poland. But all of that, as fascinating as it is, is an Early Modern story, not medieval.

Most of the serfdom they are talking about in "Eastern Europe" is in Russia, actually, and in places like Wlachia and Romania, and the parts of the Ukraine which fell under Polish-Lithuanian control as I mentioned.



My statement was
"So I will stand by my previous post, stating that yes, in many places freedom got higher after the black death, but in other regions the lords tried to prevent the peasants from leaving for the same reason thei gained their freedom in others. Some places like in eastern Europe it saw the introduction of what became the later serfdom in those regions, while in other places like Denmark or Germany it never went as harsh, but still with new restriction"

because Brandenburg and Austria do not constitute "Germany", and what we are discussing is the general trend in the region.



The problem is, I think, that the narative is mostly a western one, based by the very thorough and researched England (and France fits the model as well), but if the rest of Europe is included it become more complex (not contrary). Some regions like northern Italy the Serfdom had been abandoned before the Black Death (and was always rare there?) and in the zone outside the early feudal regions of France, England and (northern?) Spain, serfdom sometimes came as the result of the black death.

And I think you are coming from a Danish perspective, and lack an accurate sense of what was going on in the rest of Europe during this period. My study is actually mostly in Central Europe in places like Bohemia, lower Saxony, Silesia, Prussia and the Rhineland, not England or France. The only way to settle this debate is to come up with some academic articles, which I can do but I'll have to physically go to the University to access JSTOR and that may take a few days.

G

[Galloglaich]

One other thing I'd like to add on this issue of serfdom in late medieval Europe - it tended to follow a very specific pattern, closely related to conquest and ethnic / religious differences (which provided legal excuses to take away the rights of the repressed class), and also how well armed the population is, once they have been thoroughly disarmed (such as during a major defeat in an ethnic / sectarian based war) they are in a poor position to defend their rights.

Most of the major regions where serfdom took hold again fit this pattern:

Southern Spain - The serf class were the Moriscos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morisco#History), many of whom worked on Roman style Latifundia. They were defeated Moors who had been converted to Christianity, but their conversion was arguably nominal and considered suspect.

Livonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonia) - This was a complex zone, a very large area north east of Lithuania, where different rights existed, the towns were pretty free and independent for example, but most of the native population were pretty severely repressed and many were serfs, Estonian, Liv, Lett, etc. serfdom was like the Moriscos, based on the belief that they were not really Christians. This was used as a legal excuse, and their friendless religious status, like those of the Moriscos, became the excuse and the mechanism to repress them.

Southeastern Poland - Lithuania, as we have already discussed this was based mainly on the tension between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. The Ruthenian population were repressed by Polish and Lithuanian nobles who were Catholic (though many of the Lithuanians would convert to Calvinism in the 16th Century)

Russia - This was essentially a state of slavery in the form of Mongol overlordship the Mongols perceiving all non-Mongols as essentially livestock, which wouldn't end until the reign of Ivan the Terrible in the 16th Century, and he continued a Mongol style of rulership.

Hungary: Transylvania - now part of Romania, this zone is an interesting example of what I'm referring to. The local Saxon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian_Saxons) population were brought in during the Osteidlung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian_Saxons#Medieval_settlements_.28Ostsi edlung.29) when invited by King Geza II of Hungary. The local Wlach farmers, who had suffered from years of Mongol and Ottoman invasions, were considered socially and technologically backward by the Hungarian nobles. The Hungarian nobles wanted the Saxons as a bulwark against Nomad raiders, but also due to their skills in mining and other skills. The Hungarians had also made a treaty with a local nomad tribe called the Székelys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kelys) (if you are familiar with the comedian Louis C.K. he uses an acronym for his last name because he is a Székely and the word is too hard for Americans to pronounce). Some of the "Saxons" (actually Franconians for the most part, but made up of the usual wide mix of Central and Northern European immigrants) lived in towns, but most were peasants. To secure their rights in this dangerous area, they began to heavily fortify their villages after the Mongol invasions in the 13th Century.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/SaxonCitadelCincsor.JPG/1280px-SaxonCitadelCincsor.JPG
Fortified Saxon village in Transylvania

This, in combination with their growing wealth and sharing the religion of their local nominal overlords, the Hungarian nobles, gradually put them on and equal footing with the Hungarian nobles and the Székely nomads, though they continued to have little in common with the poor local Romanian peasants, who were of the Orthodox religion. As a result, the Romanians were reduced to serfdom, but the "Saxons" remained not only free, but effectively became one of those autonomous zones I mentioned before. Under mounting military pressure from the Mongols and the Ottomans, and facing uprisings by the Romanian peasants, they formalized an alliance with the Hungarian nobles and the Székely in 1438 in a Landfrieden called the Unio Trium Nationum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unio_Trium_Nationum

And in spite of the very nasty neighborhood they lived in, but no doubt aided by their hilly and heavily forested terrain, the Saxon peasants remained basically independent in that area for centuries. Most converted to Lutheranism in the 16th Century but continued the same kind of wary truce between Lutherans and Catholics that existed in much of Germany at that time (until the 30 Years War). They retained an 'elite' standing until the 18th Century. The Romanians by contrast, were really badly treated especially by their Hungarian overlords and remained repressed into serfdom for an equally long period.

G

[Spiryt]

Yes, slavery of course (at least in the 11th-12th century I would asume), but not serdom by G harsh definition of not allowed to leave the tenured land (so we are back to "its complex"). Also most sources seem to indicate that the class of free (landowning) peasants where greatly reduced in the 14-16th century - including the statistic G refered to, where it is clear that the Yokels are tenure peasants and not landowning peasants (thus they are affected by the reduction of freedom).

That's not very good definition for those periods though - since before ~13th century, Poland, like most European states before, (and many of them still), was patrimonial state.

So vast amount of people were in a way property of supreme prince/king, like a land.

So while killing and other cruel stuff was usually uncalled for, moving, replacing, restructuring whole villages, changing their economic 'purpose' etc. was very common.

Peasants had to serve lord, in one way or other - via taxes (mostly natural), hosting the court, transporting different things, defending and fighting as well.

Those duties were negotiated, traded etc. depending on how hard they were, and reasonable ruler wouldn't charge 'guard' population with transport, less reasonable one could have abuse the system though.

After Western Europe had it's Communes revolution, with Town's Law, both immigrants and local people were being settled on bit more 'free' customs, but more importantly exchanging a lot of this stuff into money tax instead (or natural equivalent, in most cases, still).

So I would definitely call it serfdom.



when it began to trigger vicious uprisings of the Ruthenian peasants and when it began to be extended to them, specifically the Cossacks

Ruthenian uprisings weren't really triggered by changes of laws - because those laws were set for a long time.

A lot of them were being simply charged by trying to actually enforce the 'paying' part of deals.

Vast areas of Ukraine were given long periods free of duties towards the owner - to actually find some people willing to colonize lands that were awfully hard to live off with pre 19th century technology, and constantly scorched by Tatars, and other violence.

When time had passed they often didn't want to pay their part - finding it too much or too inconvenient.

When and how just their pretensions were is topic for books obviously, but it's different matter.

By then Cossacks weren't really any Ruthenian peasants or townfolk anymore, but bands of warriors/soldiers, pirates and plunderers, so they didn't fit in system in any way.


Actually the rule in the entire Holy Roman Empire and almost every major town in Poland, Bohemia, Hungary or Austria, was one year and a day. The saying "Stadtluft macht frei" represented the traditional rule.

I think that the major point here is that Town's air was freeing one from FEUDAL rule - but that didn't mean that they weren't under any strong rule.

They were - just as average, moderately wealthy peasant didn't have much to say in his village(s) against feudal lord, average town dweller didn't have much do say in city ruled by Patriciate and guild elite.

He was also ruled by Town's economical, guild, industrial and social standards that often can seem quite totalitarian to us - stiff prices, amounts of goods for produce and to sell, hours of working, going to church and sleeping etc.

Of course one always has to wonder how much of that was practice and how much of ATTEMPTS (unsuccessful) by those making those laws, but the very same thing goes in case of serfdom and even slavery.

So this whole offtop about 'freedom' is extremely muddy ground in the first place, because everything is very hard to define here, concerning people that had very different concepts of freedom than we have.



(with the lure of special rights that further enhanced their freedom) who could do it without supervision. This may have been a mistake ultimately since the Teutonic Knights suffered from a revolution by their own subjects in the 15th Century which ultimately cost them most of their land

Teutonic subjects rebelled mostly because they thought that Teutonic rule was oppressive to them - mostly economically though.

One may theorize that they didn't have enough 'freedom' - particularly remaining Prussian indigenous people that were mostly second rate citizens on their own lands.

But it might have been mostly economical as well - just noticing that Polish cities on the other side of Vistula pay less contributions and customs.

[Yora]

A quite open question: This is for fantasy purposes, so any historic accuracy to specific cultures and places isn't important. But in a fantasy version of Eurasia-Africa set around 1000 to 500 BC, what things popularly associated with "medieval" warfare would not yet exist? Or perhaps, what things would show up a lot that are rarely shown in medieval fiction, if at all?

Obviously, there would be no plate armor. Also horses would be small and saddles have no stirrups, and there might even still be chariots around.
I would assume there would be massive differences in war technology with 2000 years inbetween, but other than those, I can't really think of any major differences right now.

[Kiero]

A quite open question: This is for fantasy purposes, so any historic accuracy to specific cultures and places isn't important. But in a fantasy version of Eurasia-Africa set around 1000 to 500 BC, what things popularly associated with "medieval" warfare would not yet exist? Or perhaps, what things would show up a lot that are rarely shown in medieval fiction, if at all?

Obviously, there would be no plate armor. Also horses would be small and saddles have no stirrups, and there might even still be chariots around.
I would assume there would be massive differences in war technology with 2000 years inbetween, but other than those, I can't really think of any major differences right now.

The spear is the battlefield king, the sword merely a sidearm (even moreso than in the medieval era). No long blades (ie no zweihanders or bastard swords). No pollaxes. No crossbows, no warhammers.

Not only no plate, no mail either (it was invented around 300BC in the real world). "Heavy" armour is scale. The shield is the most important defensive property of a warrior, not armour. Armour is made out of bronze for the most part, even if weapons are made from iron/steel.

Small horses are a bronze age thing, not an iron age thing (which you're solidly in by 1000BC). Though cavalry was of the light variety, unarmoured javelineers on unbarded horses usually. Their job was to mop up routing infantry and generally make a nuisance of themselves, not charge to the rear/flanks of infantry formations to disorder them. Or else flee a losing battle more speedily.

[GraaEminense]

Edit: Well, Kiero says most of this faster than me.
Off the top of my head:
No crossbows, no pikes, no warhammers, no longswords or two-handers. Mail doesn't seem to appear before the end of your period (4th Century BC), so armour will be very different. You do get to wear boar-tusk helmets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar%27s_tusk_helmet), the sexiest headwear ever.
No heavy cavalry, as far as I can see -the war chariot will still be around and you will have cavalry, but nothing like the armoured knights of the medieval age or heavy lancers of later antiquity (I will be happy to have this notion disproven downthread :D ).
Javelins and the like are everywhere. Slings and bows both see widespread use. Shields are the most important defenses for everyone. Spears are the primary melee weapon, with axes, maces, clubs, short swords and rapier-like swords all in use.
I can find no sources whatsoever of siege artillery before 500 BC, so sieges are going to be very different than what we perceive medieval ones to be. Walls are even more serious deterrents with nothing to out-range archers.

[Yora]

I believe any "rapiers" in the bronze age are actually translation errors. Someone used the term, very inapropriately, for a completely different blade type than the one from early modernity. I think they are very similar in size and shape to a gladius, but made from bronze and have no tang.

What about gear aside from weapon and armor? I am thinking of tools, infrastructure, and fortifications.

[GraaEminense]

I believe any "rapiers" in the bronze age are actually translation errors. Someone used the term, very inapropriately, for a completely different blade type than the one from early modernity. I think they are very similar in size and shape to a gladius, but made from bronze and have no tang.
Hardly a translation error, there are enough long thin bronze swords around for them to deserve their own category. They don't seem very similar to the gladius.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8018/rapirabronzerapierfroml.jpg
http://www.futuremuseum.co.uk/imageGen.ashx?image=%2Fmedia%2F567187%2FRPD0090n.j pg&width=356&constrain=true

As for tools, infrastructure and fortifications I have little to offer.

[Roxxy]

Let's say we have two bows: a Yumi and a Welsh style longbow. The Yumi is a freshly manufactured Gohonhigo (five piece bamboo laminate core, wooden sides, bamboo front and back) properly sized for the archer, and the longbow is yew, also properly sized for the archer. Both bows are made from wood grown in a climate extremely similar to California, the yew being a native tree and the bamboo being farmed. Assuming the archer is the same for both bows and is about 5'8" and in good physical condition, how does bow stack up against the other in each attribute important to a professional soldier? What are all those attributes, anyway?

On the subject of archery, I understand that a medieval arrow was hard to remove cleanly, and could require pushing the arrow through the body is a bone isn't in the way. How true is that? How effective were the special extraction tools that eventually popped up? If a medieval army's alchemists can provide strong antiseptics and opiates, does it become better to cut around the arrow to remove it (assuming that won't snip into a vein or vital organ)? Better than a specialized arrow extractor?

[Incanur]

I don't know of any solid numbers for yumi - nothing like what we've got for yew bows and Turkish composites. Yumi are generally assumed to match yew warbows in efficiency, though some yumi head ever longer draw lengths and thus stored more energy.

Some bamboo yumi numbers from an old ATARN post were pretty decent. One 44lb bow managed 185 fps with a 540-grain arrow. That's better than Mary Rose replicas do at the same grains per pound. I'd love to see careful tests of traditionally made yumi at battlefield weights (70+lbs).

For most gaming purposes, English and Japanese longbows are interchangeable. You say the Japanese ones do a little better on horseback. Yumi might deliver more energy per draw weight, but that's unclear at present.

As an aside, some extremely well-made modern wood self bows (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=8239.0) exceed the performance of Mary Rose replicas. I don't know of any at high weights or whether they'd stand up for a military campaign, but it's a plausible basis for better wood self bows in fantasy.

[Roxxy]

I'm looking at it more from an angle of which weapon a military might want to adopt. It's medievalish fantasy (kinda), but already has had colonialism come and go. I'm looking at an analogue of the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington, also controls some Polynesianish islands) terrain wise, with a culture that is fused between British, Japanese, and Chinese. The army wants to standardize bow designs, and is quite familiar with both the Yumi and the Welsh Longbow. Yew is a naturally occurring wood in the region, and imported strains of bamboo are widely farmed (along with imports of cut logs from abroad), because there is great demand for it as a construction materiel. So, the proper woods are easily available. It's a matter of which is best. Power and range are important, but so is, I would think, maintenance need, cost, and longevity, among other things. Not quite so what all those other things are, though.

As a matter of fact, there is no real reason not to consider Chinese bow designs, either.

On the subject of West Coast woods, would redwood be good for wooden components of medieval melee weapons? I know it would make a poor bow because it isn't flexible enough, but what about a spear shaft, axe handle, or sword hilt?

[Kiero]

I can find no sources whatsoever of siege artillery before 500 BC, so sieges are going to be very different than what we perceive medieval ones to be. Walls are even more serious deterrents with nothing to out-range archers.

No, about as complicated as siege engineering got back then was building a siege mound against the wall. No engines/artillery, no mining. Treachery or blockade were the usual methods of taking down a fortified place.

[GraaEminense]

No, about as complicated as siege engineering got back then was building a siege mound against the wall. No engines/artillery, no mining. Treachery or blockade were the usual methods of taking down a fortified place.
The Assyrians had some pretty cool siege towers in the 9th Century, but apart from those I think you're right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Assyrian_Attack_on_a_Town.jpg

[dramatic flare]

On the subject of West Coast woods, would redwood be good for wooden components of medieval melee weapons? I know it would make a poor bow because it isn't flexible enough, but what about a spear shaft, axe handle, or sword hilt?

I don't see why it wouldn't, but it would depend on the part of the tree you uses. Heart redwood is expensive and much more useful for building (its naturally rot resistant, which makes it great for outdoors). Sapwood doesn't has this property as much and might be conceivably used for that purpose.
However Redwood is really only local to that one region of California/Oregon. Go south and you find scrub and desert trees, go north and you find other pine and fir trees.

[kardar233]

With Age of Steam-level technology, how would you go about making a bow for a person of superhuman strength? I was thinking of trying to build a recurve with steel arms like an arbalest, but I'm not well versed in bow construction.

~EDIT~ Also, what kind of combat use might someone have for extremely dense and tough woods such as lignum vitae?

[Kiero]

The Assyrians had some pretty cool siege towers in the 9th Century, but apart from those I think you're right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Assyrian_Attack_on_a_Town.jpg

I know it was the Assyrians who invented the siege mound; I didn't realise they did towers too.

On chariots, they weren't really cavalry in the sense we might understand them. They were mobile platforms for archery or javelineering. Or battle-taxis to take a lord and his retinue to the thickest fighting, then get him away again if things went south.

Cavalry were held in little regard by the infantry; not only were they the aristocracy, but it afforded them the means to flee if a battle was going badly. The way a leader demonstrated his commitment to victory was by fighting on foot.

[snowblizz]

Further on the economic "warfare" because I read some stuff in a book just today. In 1561 Erik XIV of Sweden forbade trade on other cities than Reval (Tallinn) and Viborg. Led to war with a bunch of neighbours, though he couldn't physically impose restrictions on trade with (Russian) Narva to avoid outright war.

In these ways one could encourage traders to go to your cities instead of the enemy's. Furthermore, there are tolls and stuff you can impose. Popular at Öresund, which is why e.g. the Dutch would back the underdog in any Swedish-Danish wars so neither side got complete control.

[Incanur]

Composite bows are generally the best if you can maintain them. But they're harder to make than self bows. I'm not sure about the difficulty of making yumi.

I doubt redwood (http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-identification/softwoods/redwood/) would be any good for weapons based on the numbers. Compare with European ash (http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-identification/hardwoods/european-ash/). Redwood is awfully light and soft.

In the past I've wondered about non-European woods and whether they'd displace European woods for circa 1500 warfare. North American hickory (http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-identification/hardwoods/pignut-hickory/) became and remains the favored wood for axe handles, so I imagine hickory would have been the wood of choice for shorter staff weapon handles were it available. Roger Ascham mentioned heavy tropic woods for arrows but considered them too heavy for the average archer. In theory, a dense and hard arrow would be awesome for penetrating armor, but I don't know that it actually works out that way in practice.

[Telwar]

With Age of Steam-level technology, how would you go about making a bow for a person of superhuman strength? I was thinking of trying to build a recurve with steel arms like an arbalest, but I'm not well versed in bow construction.

~EDIT~ Also, what kind of combat use might someone have for extremely dense and tough woods such as lignum vitae?

Back in our old 3.5 game, I jokingly specified that my Str 24 rogue's composite longbow was made of adamantine, with mithral as the softer compression material. I doubt that'd actually work, though.

[Spiryt]

Robinia pseudoacacia is by all accounts excellent wood for bows.

Not only very good, but also quite a bit easier to get (legally) than yew, so used for 'longbows' a lot even though obviously it wasn't available in Europe save very modern times.


With Age of Steam-level technology, how would you go about making a bow for a person of superhuman strength? I was thinking of trying to build a recurve with steel arms like an arbalest, but I'm not well versed in bow construction.

Building bow for extremely strong creature would pretty much require scaling bow up for greater thickness, wideness, length of the limbs, to achieve greater draw weight.

Not much wheel to invent here. Quite a bit of a problem is that bows don't scale all that well with size, great length, thickness, mass and so on are not good for performance at all.

Steel won't be all that good material for full size bow - it's way too heavy, and has limited capabilities of bending safely.



Now depending on what exactly you mean by 'age of steam' - it may very well possible to build good compund bow with such technology and that would change things quite a lot.

Carbon or glass fibers would be ideal for limbs, and not exactly 'steam' but in case of well made compound system steel limbs could be passable to, and scale relatively well.

Basically two thick, horribly hard to bend 'crossbow' limbs operated by combination of wheels, cables and immense strength.

[Roxxy]

Robinia pseudoacacia is by all accounts excellent wood for bows.

Not only very good, but also quite a bit easier to get (legally) than yew, so used for 'longbows' a lot even though obviously it wasn't available in Europe save very modern times. From what I see, that tree is native to the Southeastern states but not the West Coast. However, it was transplanted to Italy. If you can grow it in Italy, you can probably grow it in California. Might be able to farm it if it has enough value, or just import logs if it's worth the money.

[Spiryt]

It is common all around the world, in Poland it apparently is invasive for example, causes changes in environment and is being (not very successfully) combated.

So it doesn't seem to be picky species at all, quite the opposite actually.

Now, some growth conditions most certainly make it way better for bow than others, but that's different story.

[Eldan]

The Assyrians had some pretty cool siege towers in the 9th Century, but apart from those I think you're right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Assyrian_Attack_on_a_Town.jpg

I have a new personal headcanon: that's a Dalek in that tower.

[Tobtor]

You are still completely missing my point.

I must be, yes. Because I never refuted any of what you said about the movement east, and yet you keep posting the (more or less) same information.

I just stated that the three field system was practised before, under and after serfdom (and also within later serfdom like situation of the early modern period). Also scratch ploughing was used by serfs and non serfs alike (at various point of different times etc). Thus it is not a matter of skill between serfs and free, but rather if you have the technology or not.

I do not refute that Germans/other western immigrants had a more developed agriculture than in eastern Europe... therefore it is no wonder that the lords/kings/everybody there tried to get more advanced farming introduced by peasants from thr more advanced areas.

(there is of course also a certain importance of population density in the two areas, which where higher in western Europe and that meant relatively more un-worked good agricultural land in the east)


You are wrong. Going back to the millennium (1,000 AD) through the high medieval period, the Cistercian order specifically did a lot of important drainage projects, and pioneered the technologies related to the practice, but the Cistercians were losing steam by the 15th

But then I am not wrong...

I just made the point that a centralized "co-ordination" (from the monesteries) of serfs, workers peasants, could lead to improvement in agriculture (as you write they "pioneered the technolgies"). That other (especially mash land peasants from the Netherlands and Ditmarchen) later did the same is not proof that it was achieved through freedom.


I have to do some work in my day job in a rather miserable oil town in southeast Texas called Nederland which was settled by Dutch "farmers" (peasants) specifically because they knew how to drain the swampy land.

Likely not settled in the medieval period, but somewhat later...

There are also many reclaimed areas in Denmark (in % more than in Germany, but clearly less than in the Netherlands). But it really accelerated in the post-medieval periods (not that it was not donein the Netherlands in late medieval times, but just pointing out that the 50% (is that is the number) did not all happened in the medieval period).


Well, yes, complex enough that we can argue holes in each others positions without a general or realistic sense of perspective. For that we'll need to dig up some academic papers, Wikipedia and old encyclopedias aren't going to settle the issue to anybodies satisfaction.

I will look foreward to that, I hope you can find something about the serfdom in Poland.



You are incorrect, they were land owners.

Yet the post you refer to as evidence write about the inn-keepers

"Innkeepers apart from inns also had their own farms, of similar size as those of yokels (around 17 ha). From incomes from these farms they were paying feudal rent." Rent, is not normally what you associate with your "own" property. Of course the post also states that "only 21% of all gentry farms in Greater Poland had their own inns", so the inkeepers could be different from the Yokels.

But the Yokels also had to do feudal works, at least according to the statement about the small-holders (living in cottages and with little land attached): "They were obliged to fulfill some feudal duties (but not as many as yokels) for the nobles." So the Yokels are part of the feudal system of paying rent! Unless you can give sourse that says otherwise they to me seem as tenant farmers (renting their land), and the degree of freedom is then decided by the laws (and that they must have been included in the 1496 one)

Even some of the riches in the countryside according to the post (the millers) where clearly not owning their own mills (though some where): "There were two categories of millers - młynarze zakupni (they had their own mill and couldn't be removed from this mill by nobles without previous compensation in money) as well as młynarze doroczni (annual millers) - who didn't have their own mills but were working on mills belonging to a local noble."

So the post in general does not separate tenants/serfs/landowners in the statistic, but it is rather based on other categories.


1496 is the end of the medieval period, but more importantly in Poland, there are different laws in different regions, and the Central authority is intentionally by the nature of the structure of their government, very weak. The szlachta (Polish nobility) is the largest (by percentage of the population) in Europe, comprising as much as 20% of the population in some areas, and many of these people are mixed into the families of the peasants.

Yes, I saw the statistic you provided (though most regions have 3-5% LANDED nobility, and then ONE region have 20 landless one, the others around 1-4%). That is interesting enough, but it doesn't say anything about the amount of tenure lands in contrast to peasant owned land.

If only the cottagers and landless tenants of the noble he could only have 5-7 tenants, servants, workers and others working for him on average (if assuming the King/church didn't have any tenants/landless). This would go even lower if it is true as the post says that the landless usually lived on the Yokel farms, reducing the number of smallholder to nobility even further. Who took care of plouging the noble estates? I know they arent big (on average, but many of the 3-5% landed nobility must have been in the lower end), but they seem too big for him doing it alone.

True 1996 is the end of the medieval period, but everywhere I see it is indicated to be a prosess starting much earlier 1374 is mentioned often (exemption for tax etc), but in our discussion most notable:
"More privileges were granted by Jagiełło through the Statute of Warta in 1423, which most notably declared the equality of all nobles.[5] This Statute also increased the nobles' power over the peasantry by limiting the peasants' right to leave their villages, and giving the nobles the right to buy out the lands of sołtys (peasant leaders).[5]" (from wikipedia on Szlachta)

Thus just in the middle of the late medieval period in Poland we have a statute limiting the peasntrys rights....


As the passage I quoted earlier from the Folwark wiki noted, this process you are referring to happened primarily in the 16th century and wasn't fully developed in the districts where it happened until the 17th - when it began to trigger vicious uprisings of the Ruthenian peasants and when it began to be extended to them, specifically the Cossacks, which ultimately led to the Deluge and the breaking of the back of Poland. But all of that, as fascinating as it is, is an Early Modern story, not medieval.


because Brandenburg and Austria do not constitute "Germany", and what we are discussing is the general trend in the region.

Did I claim they constituted Germany?

I said "parts thereof, ther eis of course no "Germany", I appologize for the misspellings, but I think it is clear that I agreed that some areas of Germany got more freedom, but that others got less (since; there is no "germany" in the medieval period, but a bunch of states tied together).

But was it really only Brendenburg and Austria? The encyclopedia reference i posted also have the
"Thus, in the German southwest, ecclesiastical lordships in particular began to impose new mobility restrictions and extend the scope and weight of death duties during the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries in order to retain control over the thinning ranks of the tenantry." Brendenburg is not southwest, it could just be Austria but I generally see reference to similar happenings in some other countries as well (Swabia, but I could be wrong).



The only way to settle this debate is to come up with some academic articles, which I can do but I'll have to physically go to the University to access JSTOR and that may take a few days.

I will look foreward to it.

Polyt: "That's not very good definition for those periods though - since before ~13th century, Poland, like most European states before, (and many of them still), was patrimonial state." and "So I would definitely call it serfdom."

Well, I am no expert on Polish conditions, so you are probably right. It was the descriptions I read in history books and on the encyclopedias thatreminded me of the Danish situation, where in the Viking age and early medieval period the serfs were rare, and the obligations of the landowning peasants were mainly military and a few taxes (like tithes in the Christian period), and were the transition of ownership of land to the nobles, king and church (by the end of the medieval period the church owned 35% of the land(!) in Denmark, a VERY good reason for a reformation...) happened from 1200 and onward.

[Ellisif]

I have a question concerning bastard swords. I am working with some Icelandic sources which mention a sword named Bastarðr, the Old Norse rendering of the word bastard. It does not say why it is named thus, and one possibility is that it is named after William the Bastard/Conqueror, always called Vilhjálmr bastarðr in the Norse texts. However, my immediate association is that of bastard swords. A quick survey of wikipedia and the like says these are late medieval (15th or 16th century), but my sources place the named sword Bastard in the second half of the 12th century. The sources are themselves from the first half of the 13th century.

What could the connection, if any is possible, be between this sword and the category bastard swords? I am mainly interested in the term, not so much in the exact qualities of swords so called at different periods of time.

[Storm Bringer]

my laymans answer would be that it was a odd length for that time period, most likely a middling length between the typical "short" and "long" swords (whatever those mean in this context). thus, its a "bastard child" of the two.

[GraaEminense]

I'm guessing it's a given name, not a sword type.
"I stabbed him in the chest and he walks away! Sword, I name you BASTARD!"

If it is a sword type, I agree with Storm Bringer: It's probably a sword that doesn't fit the idea of "normal". Long grip, no pommel, no crossguard, long blade, short blade, I'd add single-edged to the list if those weren't very common.

[Spiryt]

First half of 13th century is where longswords of some kind are starting to appear in Central Europe, so it's certainly not impossible at all that somebody in Iceland had seen such sword already, and with a name 'bastard' being used in this meaning already.

Especially since it does seem that those early longswords would often basically be large 'normal' sword with simply elongated hilt/bigger pommel thus looking 'bastardish' to new observer.

https://darksword-armory.com/images_site/historical/1339%20-%20Two%20Handed%20Sword.jpg

Answering this more accurately would probably require some serious etymological searching - if and when 'bastard' started to be used to refer to swords and if in the meaning of 'both 1 and 2 hands hold possible'.

[Straybow]

I've been horribly busy, now catching up on threads. Going way back to the end of summer:

As another question, how practical is it to fight with a polearm indoors? I am having an idea for a story and I don't like how everyone is always swinging around swords when spears and their like seem to have been the weapon of choice for so many more people and cultures. But can you fight with a reasonably sized polearm, say 2m in length, inside of buildings? Or would it be much more sensible to drop it and draw a long knife or an axe? I've seen some naginata tournaments and they seem to be fighting at very close ranges but with a lot of space to move around (though fighting for points and not for survival might quite possibly make a major difference on how close they get to each other). The weapon of choice for war is going to be the spear or pole arm. The sword is the back-up, as we deem the pistol a "side arm" in today's military. Indoors you go to the back-up weapon.


As Miyamoto Musashi (http://www.uvm.edu/~asnider/IDAS_2011_CD/Teachers/Steve%20Llano's%20Materials/Strategy%20Books/Book%20of%20Five%20Rings%20-%20Musashi.pdf) wrote, staff weapons aren't much use in confined spaces. In general, you don't want a polearm indoors. Obviously certain structures are spacious enough, but most aren't. But shorter polearms could work; in 1448 Margaret Paston (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=27330&view=previous) wrote for short poleaxes to keep by the doors. I used to work night shift in a motel. I could do my staff-derived techniques in the space between the coffee station and the front desk. My stick was a 4½ feet, and the space was a little over 5 feet wide. You don't need tons of space. The main problem is headroom. Back then most private homes had very low ceilings compared to today's standard 8 feet. The motel lobby had a 10 foot ceiling, which was more than sufficient for my short staff but would have been insufficient for good use of a more typical 8 foot quarterstaff.


What i meant with the catching and manipulating part refers to a documentary i saw years ago, the name escapes me so I've had no luck digging up a video, but in it a history professor demonstrated several techniques with what he claimed was a halberd, (i can describe the weapon if you wish), in which he used the shape/s of the axe and hammer heads on the business end of the blade to catch the enemy swordsman's blade between the blade/hammer and the haft of the weapon, and then depending on the technique used, twist the blade out of the enemies grasp, break the blade in half, or force it through an arc that moved the enemies center of balance forward or backward, leaving them off balance and unable to effectively respond as he disengaged their blade from his weapon to then deliver a fatal blow. The two examples i remember involved him overbalancing the enemy forward so he finished bent double allowing him to bring the axe blade down on the back of the neck, and another that overbalanced him backward leaving him on his back on the floor where the conical point on the butt of the haft could be brought on the chest armor. Yes. The staff has four main wards, while the bill/halberd has eight in Terry Brown's modern Silver-based system. The head is used to catch a weapon and either block it laterally or pin it to the ground. The user then swings the head back in/up to counterattack, or swings the butt around if too close.

[Tobtor]

G: If you (or anyone else for that matter) is interested the danish national museum homepage have a lot of information about a different weapon sacrifice bog, called Vimose (most of it unfortunately poorly excavated back in the late 19th century, thus a lot of information is missing).

There a consecutive sacrifices from around 1 Ad to 7th century, but the main deposition is around 2nd or 3rd centery.

http://natmus.dk/en/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-early-iron-age/the-weapon-deposit-from-vimose/

Here is a few pics from the homepage:

Germanic sword and other weapons from around 2nd century AD (note the one edged design):
http://natmus.dk/typo3temp/pics/73ac9611a7.jpg

Roman pommels of ivory:
http://natmus.dk/typo3temp/pics/7813d08d79.jpg

Roman sword with factory stamp:
http://natmus.dk/uploads/pics/Vimose_svaerd_stempel_C3799_05.jpg

Roman Bandoler plate from Vimose
http://natmus.dk/typo3temp/pics/5c464d07da.jpg


There is more pictures on the homepage (of a chain mail, spears, gaming pieces, personal gear, and more).

If anyone wants to investigate 2nd century weapon designs, army gear etc, Denmark is the to go to place (which is why Russel Crowe uses an Illerup sword in Gladiator).

I was actually searching for chain mail from 350BC-300BC bog sacrifice of Hjortspring, the only larger BC sacrifice we have (three ships, 80 javelin/spear/lance heads and some swords, see below), but couldnt find any.

Swords 350-300BC
http://natmus.dk/typo3temp/pics/05ddb446c1.jpg

[Yora]

The first and last picture appear to show single edged swords. I've never seen such in Northern European contexts. Interesting.

[GraaEminense]

The first and last picture appear to show single edged swords. I've never seen such in Northern European contexts. Interesting.
Really? Are you talking about this period in particular, or generally? They were pretty common a few hundred years later, at least.

http://www.militaria.pl/upload/wysiwyg/ARTYKULY/miecze_sztychy/petersen_1919_glownie_jednosieczne.jpg

[Galloglaich]

Beautiful artifacts Tobtor. Exquisite. I've been to Denmark and seen the Viking Age stuff at Roskilde but never all this stuff, I'll have to check these museums out next time I'm there.

Albion has a replica similar to that first one, with a little history of the type

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-germanic-cherusker.htm

G

[Tobtor]

Yes, the swords are single edged, this is actually the common design for swords in the Early Iron age in Scandinavia/northern Germany (500-1BC), and also still very common in the following centuries (as the one from Vimose from the 2nd century AD).

The same design is used for larger fighting knives of the period. Post AD imported Roman swords (and a few that could be central European copies), seem to become more prestigious and thus the single edged sword become a poor mans substitute. After the 5th century we have almost no bog-sacrifices, thus it is more difficult to be sure of which sword type is dominant (and in Denmark there is few or no weapons in the graves from the early 3rd century and some hundred years onward, instead drinking equipment of Roman and later "Black sea gothic" origin is favoured amongst the elite).

However those weapon graves we find from Scandinavia do contain some single edged swords, and they also seem common at least for the shorter version all over northern Germanic areas. As frankish weapons become popular (the new ideal) in the post Roman era, we see copies of these by local producers (like copies of the Ulfberth swords), and we might argue that the single edged sword becomes less common (though as GraaEminense show still used), and the design is more and more only used for shorter secondary weapons (large knives and/or short swords), and mostly north of Denmark (Norway and Sweden) when we reach the Viking age.

[Brother Oni]

Really? Are you talking about this period in particular, or generally? They were pretty common a few hundred years later, at least.


Indeed. Seax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax) and scramsax were very popular with the Saxons during the High Middle Ages (11th-13th centuries), but that might be because England lagged behind the rest of Europe for some reason.

I had the opportunity to handle a replica scramasax of a similar shape to this one (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax_of_Beagnoth)) once and I found it's an oddly weighted weapon as it had a very thick spine which shifts the balance further up the weapon than compared to something like a katana.

[Yora]

we see copies of these by local producers (like copies of the Ulfberth swords)
Nitpick: The inscription "Ulfberth" is the main way to identify a counterfeit Ulfberht. :smallwink:

[Milodiah]

Nitpick: The inscription "Ulfberth" is the main way to identify a counterfeit Ulfberht. :smallwink:


Not to mention "Made in India" :smalltongue:

The fun part of that is I've got a sword that legitimately (as in, with documentation) made it from the Sepoy Revolt of 1857 to the 1st Texas Cavalry in the American Civil War, and nobody believes it's real because it was...well...made in India.

[SiuiS]

Now I'm intrigued...

I've had a few instances of "if you touch me my boyfriend will step in", and the responses I had at the time were basically "Gotta drop you before he crosses the bar then. I'll take off my coat." And no, not all of them were people with boyfriends, it applied just as much to 'my homies over there' or 'my big brother/uncle'.

People get sort of shocked out of the idea that you're playing one-upmsanship and realize this isn't a threat in the common sense, it's a declaration of intent. If cuts through the abstract of a tribe and focuses the mind on the idea that you may be a part of a greater organism but fingers and arms can still be broken, useles. It makes the threat real, and personal.

Like the Japanese thing of tossing your saiya when going into a sword fight. You know there are consequences, you have accepted them implicitly. You're already dead. Making you know this won't change your mind. It's "all in" at the poker table.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Got a real world weapon/armor question here:

Is there a functional difference between brigandine armor and what the english called a "jack of plates" (like, a quilted or leather jerkin with steel plates sewn under, with studs poking through which I understand was Gary Gygax's mistaken inspiration for the term "studded leather.")

[Yora]

According to wikipedia "the main difference is in the method of construction: a brigandine is riveted whereas a jack is sewn." From images I've seen, jack of plates also have smaller metal plates, which I would assume makes them more flexible. But it seems indeed to be simply a more refined version of the brigandine.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Thanks. That was fast!

[Ilinoris]

This has most likely been asked atleast 20 times through out these threads, but to be honest I do not care for going through each page of each thread to find my answer...
In my upcoming campaign we are going to be using the Armor as Damage Reduction rules from UA, but as I am also going for something more gritty this time around, one wish to have each have the damage reduction surpassed by a weapon which would be able to, in real life.
So my question is, I guess, which type of weapon would be able to bypass armor on the armors from 3.5 PH (Padded, (studded) leather, chain shirt, Hide, Scale mail, chainmail, breastplate, Splint mail, banded mail, half-plate and full plate)??

Also, if there is someone who knows exactly where to find this in a previous thread, I would love to be linked :-)

[Yora]

Wearing armor is always better than not wearing at, against virtually all types of weapons. No attack, unless magical, should ever ignore armor. But if you're using a system where armor can both deflect attacks harmlessly and reduce damage from actual hits, then applying only the deflection (bonus to AC) against certain damage types might be "reasonably realistic".

In D&D, there are three types of damage: Piercing, slashing, and blunt.
Gambesons (padded armor) is actually surprisingly good against piercing attacks. Slashing attacks can cut it to ribbons after several hits, but since in D&D you don't tend to get a lot of hits per battle, I think DR should apply against these as well. I am making a pure guess, but I think a soft armor that would significantly cushion blunt attacks would be too heavy to move in, so I would say blunt attack ignore the DR.
With leather armor (leather, studded leather, and hide) I am at a loss. The kind of leather armor you tend to see in fantasy wouldn't really protect much at all. Actual leather armor that has been used for battle would probably be quite decent against all types of attacks. Maybe set the DR very low, but let no type of weapon ignore it.
Mail (which would be chain shirt and chainmail) is extremely good against slashing attacks, but doesn't do much against piercing and blunt attacks. However, the badding under the mail can reduce the damage from such attacks, but not near what other types of armor can do. If all armor helps avoiding being hit, then I would say apply the DR only against slashing weapons.
Lamellar and scale type (scale mail, splint mail, and banded mail) would be impossible to penetrate with a slash and possibly even stand up against most piercing attacks. Blunt weapon would most probably still hurt quite a lot.
Plate armor (half-plate and full plate) has basically the same qualities as lamellar in this case. Slashing damage is not going to happen and piercing attacks would have a really hard time, if they penetrate at all. Blunt weapons have traditionally been the weapon of choice against these.
Breastplates are weird, as they are basically plate armor for the torso, but don't cover anything else. Probably best say blunt damage ignores DR. Got no better idea here.

Game mechanics wise, we're getting a bit of a problem here: Blunt works great against everything, slashing is stopped by everything. Piercing ignores only the DR of mail. Not sure if that's worth implementing.

[Spiryt]

Mail (which would be chain shirt and chainmail) is extremely good against slashing attacks, but doesn't do much against piercing and blunt attacks.

There's really no indication from sources or few better experiments that mail was particularly vulnerable to 'piercing' attacks, leave along 'doing not much'.

It was used all over the world as a top grade armor in setting where 'piercing' was by far most common threat.



So my question is, I guess, which type of weapon would be able to bypass armor on the armors from 3.5 PH (Padded, (studded) leather, chain shirt, Hide, Scale mail, chainmail, breastplate, Splint mail, banded mail, half-plate and full plate)??

Question is sadly somehow hard to answer because armors in 3.5 are constructed very arbitrarily and with no touch with 'reality'.

Generally though, the answer would be that if someone is wearing decent weight of armor of whatever material and construction on him then no hand weapon can really 'bypass it'.

Without going in firearms, or weapons more powerful than hand held, at least.

[Ilinoris]

Wearing armor is always better than not wearing at, against virtually all types of weapons. No attack, unless magical, should ever ignore armor. But if you're using a system where armor can both deflect attacks harmlessly and reduce damage from actual hits, then applying only the deflection (bonus to AC) against certain damage types might be "reasonably realistic".

In D&D, there are three types of damage: Piercing, slashing, and blunt.
Gambesons (padded armor) is actually surprisingly good against piercing attacks. Slashing attacks can cut it to ribbons after several hits, but since in D&D you don't tend to get a lot of hits per battle, I think DR should apply against these as well. I am making a pure guess, but I think a soft armor that would significantly cushion blunt attacks would be too heavy to move in, so I would say blunt attack ignore the DR.
With leather armor (leather, studded leather, and hide) I am at a loss. The kind of leather armor you tend to see in fantasy wouldn't really protect much at all. Actual leather armor that has been used for battle would probably be quite decent against all types of attacks. Maybe set the DR very low, but let no type of weapon ignore it.
Mail (which would be chain shirt and chainmail) is extremely good against slashing attacks, but doesn't do much against piercing and blunt attacks. However, the badding under the mail can reduce the damage from such attacks, but not near what other types of armor can do. If all armor helps avoiding being hit, then I would say apply the DR only against slashing weapons.
Lamellar and scale type (scale mail, splint mail, and banded mail) would be impossible to penetrate with a slash and possibly even stand up against most piercing attacks. Blunt weapon would most probably still hurt quite a lot.
Plate armor (half-plate and full plate) has basically the same qualities as lamellar in this case. Slashing damage is not going to happen and piercing attacks would have a really hard time, if they penetrate at all. Blunt weapons have traditionally been the weapon of choice against these.
Breastplates are weird, as they are basically plate armor for the torso, but don't cover anything else. Probably best say blunt damage ignores DR. Got no better idea here.

Game mechanics wise, we're getting a bit of a problem here: Blunt works great against everything, slashing is stopped by everything. Piercing ignores only the DR of mail. Not sure if that's worth implementing.

Alright thanks, this means that I most likely won't implement it then. And if I do, it won't be based too much on realism ;-)

[Hjolnai]

As Yora says, blunt impacts tend to be reasonably effective against armour. However, its effectiveness is still diminished - just not by as much as a slashing weapon. It's still really hard to kill a plate-armoured foe with a mace. I would recommend not letting weapons bypass the armour DR, unless you're willing to get into the complexities of saying "weapon X ignores 2 points of armour" or whatever.

However, there is an important consideration - grappling. One of the most effective ways of dealing with a heavily armoured opponent was to wrestle, and try to stick a dagger in somewhere not covered by the armour (e.g. eye slot, inside of the elbow, etc). I would recommend applying half the armour bonus to grapple checks, but having its DR ignored completely in that context.

[Kiero]

Wearing armor is always better than not wearing at, against virtually all types of weapons. No attack, unless magical, should ever ignore armor. But if you're using a system where armor can both deflect attacks harmlessly and reduce damage from actual hits, then applying only the deflection (bonus to AC) against certain damage types might be "reasonably realistic".


Sort of. Wearing armour has ancillary complications - primary amongst them in reducing your mobility (try swimming in most armours, or running for any length of time) and making it hard for your body to lose heat (which is a significant consideration when doing something as active as fighting). The real problem with the D&D paradigm, couched as it is in the mid/late medieval era, is that it trivialises shields while lumping all protective power in body armour alone.

In antiquity, the shield was often protection enough - not just because it was cheaper than armour, but with a large shield like the aspis, it could cover your body from cheek to knee and was proof against arrows and sling-stones. Even javelins if you angled it right against those you were aware of.

Grappling also comes up in antiquity; pankration, an ancient Greek form of unarmed combat, had as its foundation boxing and wrestling. It was intended to be used by a hoplite when his spears were broken and he was too close to use a sword, or perhaps it had been lost. It was considered a necessary part of a warrior's training.

[Yora]

That's true. What I meant is it's always better to have something between a weapon and your body when the weapon hits you. There would be very few, if any weapons who cause more severe injuries when they go through armor first.

As someone mentioned helmets, in recent years I've heard repeatedly that knights most probably not actually fought with the visor covering their face. The visor can be a huge life saver when you are trying to cross open ground with enemy archers shoting arrows at you. With enough arrows flying around, even having just 5% of your front uncovered by armor is a huge hazard. But with many types of helmet, with the visor down, you are virtually blind and deaf and have a hard time breathing and getting very hot. For a one or two minute charge over open ground, that's something you can live with. But when you have to swing around your weapon to hit a moving target that is within arms length and can move behind you, you can't realistically fight with something like this in your face:
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DHN.608 048411820165591%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

It might still be easier to get a stab under the arm or into the hip, as the arms are very well positioned to keep something away from your face. Keeping a blade away from your kidney while a guy in full armor is lying on top of you would be much more difficult and akward.

[Kiero]

I could well believe that. I do full contact martial arts, and for certain types of sparring, we're supposed to wear head guards. Supposedly for "safety" but the reality is they stop you getting cut - they make brain injuries worse, when combined with padded gloves.

Anyway, the point here is that most people (myself included) hate wearing them, not least because they make your head sweat something chronic (lots of sweat running into your eyes) and mess with your vision (especially if someone knows the trick of throwing a hook punch to the guard, which spins it around across your eyes). That's something without a visor to enclose your breathing, add that in and I can't imagine it's terribly comfortable for more than a minute or so.

[Galloglaich]

One thing you can do (what I do in the Codex) is assign both a DR and a 'bypass' figure to armor. So you can have the choice to go through (and suffer the DR) or around (and suffer a 'To-Hit' penalty kind of like the old AC). This is what I do in the Codex and it works well in practice, it gives your users more options.

So for example if you say a gambeson coat covers a lot of the body but is limited in protection, maybe it has a DR of 2 and a Bypass penalty of -6. So your best bet is probably to go through it.

A breast plate by contrast might have a DR of 8 but a bypass of -4. So your best bet is probably to go around it.

Different weapons effect armor in different ways, but very generally if you leave out purpose-made armor-piercing weapons, cutting / chopping attacks work the worst, then piercing, then blunt attacks. So you can give each type of attack a DR mod if you want to, like -2 DR for cuts, neutral for piercing, +2 for blunt. This would be just to neutralize the DR.

For your specific armor-piercing weapons like military picks, halberds, roundel and stiletto daggers and so on, you can give them specific armor-piercing bonus along the same lines. Maybe a military pick has +4 vs. DR. An armor-piercing bolt might do less damage (step down from d8 to d6 or what have you) but have a +4 vs. DR. Now suddenly there is an actual reason to carry and use something like a military pick or a roundel dagger, or some armor-piercing arrows.


Another thing really badly missing in DnD and most RPG's is that weapons play no role in defense. In real life, one of the reasons shields became a little less common on the battlefield is that the weapons themselves, thanks to quillions, complex hilts, and increased length, became more useful for defense. In a real fight an experienced fighter will use a sword to parry, and that is a big defensive advantage over not having a weapon.

For shields, in the Codex I treat that as a defensive weapon and give shield-bearers an additional defensive action.

G

[Yora]

With boxing gloves and head padding, I believe it doesn't actually make the injuries worse. What happens instead is that it normally hurts a lot to hit a skull with your fist, so boxing sports that don't use padding tend to avoid strikes at the head.
With boxing gloves and the like, you can hammer on your opponents head all day without hurting your hands, and so that's what's actually happening. A single unpadded strike to the head would certainly be worse than a padded one. But getting punched repeatedly, even with padding, is going to cause some serious damage to the brain in the long run.

Similar with rugby. Rugby uses almost no protection compared to american football. And while there are a lot more relatively minor bruises (even if they bleed), the players take a lot more care not to crush into each other with big impacts. With padding each individual impact may not hurt a lot, but the brain still suffers some small damage, which adds up over time and doesn't go away like a bruise.

[Kurien]

This has most likely been asked atleast 20 times through out these threads, but to be honest I do not care for going through each page of each thread to find my answer...
In my upcoming campaign we are going to be using the Armor as Damage Reduction rules from UA, but as I am also going for something more gritty this time around, one wish to have each have the damage reduction surpassed by a weapon which would be able to, in real life.
So my question is, I guess, which type of weapon would be able to bypass armor on the armors from 3.5 PH (Padded, (studded) leather, chain shirt, Hide, Scale mail, chainmail, breastplate, Splint mail, banded mail, half-plate and full plate)??

Also, if there is someone who knows exactly where to find this in a previous thread, I would love to be linked :-)

Pre-Posting Edit: I took a while to write this, so of course I was Ninja'ed hard, but darn it, I'm posting it anyway! :smalltongue:

Disclaimer: I am in no way an expert on the subject of weapons and armour. It’s simply an interest of mine. Also, since I'm not that familiar with D&D so my advice on how to translate reality to game mechanics is limited.

First of all, if you're looking for some kind of Rock-Paper-Scissors type effectiveness system, where one type of weapon is effective against one type of armour, but useless against another, then you'll be disappointed; armour is far more complicated than that. Also, all types of armour in general existed because they were good at preventing injuries from all sorts of attacks, although I'll concede that some types held up better than others from specific types of attacks.

In D&D, Melee Weapons are categorized among three basic damage types: slashing (most swords, some polearms, axes), piercing(spears, some swords, daggers, picks), and bludgeoning (maces, hammers, flails), with some compound forms such as bludgeoning/piercing (morningstar maces or flails), and slashing/piercing(halberd, scythe). In reality, these forms of attack could be better called cutting, thrusting and impact weapons. (Pick-style weapons probably fall somewhere between impact and thrusting.) Cutting weapons could be further broken down into slicing/draw cutting(swords) and chopping/hacking weapons(falchions, axes).

Polearms vs Single-handed: Also, some sort of distinction should be raised between light/one handed weapons and two-handed/polearms. Polearms are able to generate far more force than any single-handed weapon, and thus have a better chance of being effective vs. armour.

Assuming human levels of strength, all forms of armour would offer some protection from all types of damage, but to varying degrees. Generally, there are two methods for defeating armour. The first way is to hit the opponent with an impact weapon, attempting to injure them by transmitting force through the armour, to break bones, cause concussions etc. The second way is to bypass the armour by hitting the spots where the armour isn’t, such as the gaps at joints, under the armpits, the groin, and the face.

Cutting: In general, forget about attempting to directly cut through just about any type of armour, except maybe the lightest armours (padded cloth, boiled leather, and low quality/butted mail). Slicing weapons like swords are particularly ineffective at this, but cleaving weapons like axes might fare better, because they’re better at generating force, similar to impact weapons.

Thrusting:: Thrusting weapons may have a slightly better time causing damage against armour, but it’s still rather unlikely to actually punch through armour with a strong thrust. However, thrusting weapons are well-suited for attacking the gaps in armour, but then accuracy becomes a concern. A special case is reserved for the concept of half-swording (supporting Youtube Clips: [1] (http://youtu.be/iBwtkRd8xzU), [2] (http://youtu.be/vwuQPfvSSlo)), a well-documented technique used by folks in armour against armour, in which a sword is gripped partway up the blade to assist in the accuracy of the thrust.

Impact: I think impact weapons are what people think of when say anti-armour weapons. Basically, impact weapons consist of any hitty thing with the weight concentrated forward to the striking end. They often had bumps, spikes, ridges and such, a la the morningstar, not to stab the opponent, but to help the weapon “bite” into armour to reduce the chances of glancing hits. In medieval Europe, maces and such developed as specialized knightly weapons to counter other heavily-armoured knights. An important thing to note, however, is while impact weapons are useful in armoured combat, they’re at a disadvantage in unarmoured combat against the more wieldy swords (Source: [3] (http://youtu.be/TtYKkwpx1gw))

Now, the types of armour:

Here is a good source for information about mid-15C armour types: [4] (http://youtu.be/X9fHmXxaXqQ).
You should probably already know that D&D’s armour list is full of inaccuracies. For one, there is no historical evidence that studded leather armour was ever a thing, and logically it makes little sense anyway. Leather armour is better represented by something like cuir bouilli (boiled leather), which was much more rigid and restrictive of movement than the depictions of leather fetishwear found in most fantasy art. Basically a breastplate made of an organic substance instead of metal. Hide armour could probably be lumped with leather, unless it’s specifically made from exotic creatures like rhinos and dinosaurs. If so, then such hide armour would be significantly more protective at the cost of being much heavier and restrictive.

Now, D&D did get something right in that it categorizes armour into light, medium and heavy. However, “light” armour is not necessarily all that light, and “heavy” armour might be lighter than you’d expect.

Here are my suggestions:

Light Armour: Should offer very reasonable DR against all types of damage, but maybe somewhat less strong against thrusting and impact weapons.

Medium Armour: Should offer very good DR against all types of damage, but maybe a little weak against impact weapons.

Heavy Armour: Should offer outstanding, if not near total DR against all types of damage, except for impact weapons.

You may opt for a mechanic for attacking the gaps in armour as well. An attack that successfully hits the gaps would ignore most of an armour’s DR. Maybe it’s represented by rolling critical hits, or specific called shots. The difficulty of hitting the gaps would change based on the coverage of different armours. For example, if hands are unarmoured, they’d be a prime target for called shots. Heavier armours will generally present fewer and smaller gaps for targets. Also, characters with high Dexterity modifiers might be better at defending the gaps in their armour.

Finally, a word about Quality and Fit: to varying degrees, the quality of craftsmanship and fit for a specific individual is important towards an armour’s effectiveness. Poor quality materials and an improper design not only reduce the protectiveness, but also its comfort and range of motion, as well as increasing weight, and the rate of fatigue for the wearer. This is an issue especially for all forms of rigid plate armour, but an incorrectly sized mail hauberk would also be harder to use. The best armours are also generally tailor-made for a specific individual. Not surprisingly, they are also the most expensive. Mass produced armours (one size fits all) or armours made for other people would naturally be less effective than the fitted kind, or even flat out unusable. Of course, this is fantasy, so some kind of magic resizing property would render this point moot.

Pre-Posting Edit: Galloglaich's input is excellent.

[Galloglaich]

I never understood why DnD restricted weapons to only cut or only pierce and so on, when so many (especially swords!) are so fundamentally designed to do both things. I guess for balance? Is that still the way 5e works?

Or why so few RPG's of any kind seem to take into consideration the idea that having something to parry with makes you harder to hit.

G

[Kurien]

I never understood why DnD restricted weapons to only cut or only pierce and so on, when so many (especially swords!) are so fundamentally designed to do both things. I guess for balance? Is that still the way 5e works?

Or why so few RPG's of any kind seem to take into consideration the idea that having something to parry with makes you harder to hit.

G

Yup, I agree. It may be due to most RPG designers not being knowledgeable about HEMA, or bothering to do research or hire a consultant for it, and thus assume defense is only passive... maybe like with hockey/football gear.

As for me, I have a question: I've done some searching for image references for different kinds of medieval mounted equipment (i.e.: horse harness, saddle, barding) but don't have a clue on how to separate the real deal from more modern designs. Does anyone have more of a clue? Thanks in advance :smallsmile:.

[Brother Oni]

Similar with rugby. Rugby uses almost no protection compared to american football. And while there are a lot more relatively minor bruises (even if they bleed), the players take a lot more care not to crush into each other with big impacts.

Actually they enforce it by making high tackles (hits above the shoulders) illegal. Getting caught for a high tackle is a penalty at the very least (your team must concede 10 yds), up to instant dismissal if it was deemed dangerous.



As for me, I have a question: I've done some searching for image references for different kinds of medieval mounted equipment (i.e.: horse harness, saddle, barding) but don't have a clue on how to separate the real deal from more modern designs. Does anyone have more of a clue? Thanks in advance :smallsmile:.

While I can't help with the other pieces of kit, I can help with the barding.

Jousting armour has plenty of examples of barding:

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/images/HenryVIIIarmor02.jpg
http://sarahlunsford.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/105_0532.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5021/5686234064_c5e82f3695_b.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Royal_armoury_Stockholm_1.jpg

Taking it further back, the Byzantine Cataphracts used lamellar and scale:

http://larsbrownworth.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cataphract.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Ancient_Sasanid_Cataphract_Uther_Oxford_2003_06_2% 281%29.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xlv62ZC2Bys/UKFSfPnpKVI/AAAAAAAAKf8/253zKTZ-POg/s1600/Paris+day+two+137.JPG

The Mongols were also fond of this type of armour:
http://www.jimmcdowall.org.uk/assets/images/db_images/db_Mongol_Cavalry_Leeds_Armoury1.jpg
http://www.travelhyper.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/7-Mongolian-Armored-Horse-and-Warriors.jpg

[Spiryt]

Impact: I think impact weapons are what people think of when say anti-armour weapons. Basically, impact weapons consist of any hitty thing with the weight concentrated forward to the striking end. They often had bumps, spikes, ridges and such, a la the morningstar, not to stab the opponent, but to help the weapon “bite” into armour to reduce the chances of glancing hits. In medieval Europe, maces and such developed as specialized knightly weapons to counter other heavily-armoured knights. An important thing to note, however, is while impact weapons are useful in armoured combat, they’re at a disadvantage in unarmoured combat against the more wieldy swords

It's worth noting that in some places at some times, there were plenty of 'anti armour' impact weapons indeed.

But at the same time there were plenty of maces, hammers, pickaxes etc. particularly on Asian steppes, or Eastern Europe that doesn't appear very 'anti armour' at all.

Mostly because they're pretty tiny, and armor wasn't all that prevalent any way.

So there's a quite a problem with making such weapon more 'anti armor' than most axes of similar weight, or big swords.

They're the same 'impact' as other stuff, basically, only 'blunt' instead of cutting.

[Galloglaich]

It's worth noting that in some places at some times, there were plenty of 'anti armour' impact weapons indeed.

But at the same time there were plenty of maces, hammers, pickaxes etc. particularly on Asian steppes, or Eastern Europe that doesn't appear very 'anti armour' at all.

Mostly because they're pretty tiny, and armor wasn't all that prevalent any way.

So there's a quite a problem with making such weapon more 'anti armor' than most axes of similar weight, or big swords.

They're the same 'impact' as other stuff, basically, only 'blunt' instead of cutting.

You think maces and hammers have the same impact on an a helmeted head that a sword edge does? If so I don't agree!

G

[Spiryt]

You think maces and hammers have the same impact on an a helmeted head that a sword edge does? If so I don't agree!

G

Of course it's different, due to the way striking implement is shaped, angles of forces etc.

The point is that it's automatically assumed that something 'bludgeoning' will work well against 'armor' which is often hard to take for granted.

~200 g piece of metal, on rather thin stick isn't really going to hit much 'heavier' than any solid sized cutting weapon. This would be typical mace of High Medieval Europe, for example.

Knobs wouldn't be really big enough to disfigure helmet significantly, even if we assume that impact's strong enough.

Then there are flanged maces that in a way consist of ~6 small swordish 'blades' (flat planes of iron oriented perpendicularly to struck surface) - so impacts could get surprisingly similar in some cases.

And sometimes almost indistinguishable from narrow axehead impact with similar weights.

I just feel that we must be very cautious with that bludgeoning - 'anti armor' generalization, it can be deceiving.

[Yora]

Another thing when it comes to nonmetal armor is that there's a big difference between hacking cuts (axe) and slashing cuts (sabre). Hacking on a gambeson won't do anything to the armor (though still leave bruised ribs), but drawing cuts can cut through many layers quite well. Leather of sufficient strength for armor would most likely fare the same way.
In practice, a stike with an axe will probably never be completely straight on draw a little bit. But I think axe stikes and sabre slashes would get very different results, yet they are both treated as the same damage type by most RPGs.

[Spiryt]

The flip side of your comment is pretending for example that sword blades make pretty good bludgeons - this was a myth perpetuated by the SCA for decades, that you could beat somebody into submission pretty easily with sword blows. Supposedly you could just hack away and the blunt impact of the sword will quickly beat your opponent into submission.

Having been in about 10 full-contact international longsword tournaments now with no more head protection than a fencing mask and little more body protection than a padded coat, elbow pads and some plastic covered gloves, I can tell you that a steel longsword is really poor substitute for a bludgeon. If the other guy had a hammer though I wouldn't even try that contest.

Well, it all depends on 'good' - there are still pretty decent knockdowns and dented helmets/stuff from longswords in full contact steel fights.

All depends on sword too, obviosuly.



I think the predilection for light maces in Central / Eastern Europe and Central Asia is precisely because they are ideal for ringing somebodies bell even when they are wearing a helmet, whereas a saber or a sword really isn't. You can also throw them.

G

I suspect that they might have been good for riding combat in general. Even if the impact is very strong, they will all in all bounce off, or haft will break, at worst.

With any edged weapon there's always chance of getting stuck with all unpleasant consequences.

Helmets etc. is interesting trope too, though they still wouldn't be that popular, and as mentioned, many of those maces don't really look like they could hurt someone trough ferrous helmet.

It's obviously all pure speculation, sadly. :/


In practice, a stike with an axe will probably never be completely straight on draw a little bit. But I think axe stikes and sabre slashes would get very different results, yet they are both treated as the same damage type by most RPGs.

There were plenty of battleaxes with blades long enough to make some decent drawing action perfectly possible with broad, arched swing though. To complicate it a bit more.:smallwink:

[Galloglaich]

At the level of abstraction we are talking about, it's not going to adequately cover the full range of physics and military kit. Bludgeon = armor piercing is not universal. But all else being equal, bludgeon > cut against metal armor is true.

The flip side of your comment is pretending for example that sword blades make pretty good bludgeons - this was a myth perpetuated by the SCA for decades, that you could beat somebody wearing mail, helmet and gambeson into submission pretty easily with sword blows. Supposedly you could just hack away and the blunt impact of the sword will quickly beat your opponent into submission right through their armor.



Having been in about 10 full-contact international longsword tournaments now with no more head protection than a fencing mask and little more body protection than a padded coat, elbow pads and some plastic covered gloves, I can tell you that a steel longsword is really poor substitute for a bludgeon. If the other guy had a hammer though I wouldn't even try that contest.

I think the predilection for light maces in Central / Eastern Europe and Central Asia is precisely because they are ideal for ringing somebodies bell even when they are wearing a helmet, whereas a saber or a sword really isn't. You can also throw them.

With two weapons with the same weight, say 2-3 pounds, but one has a lump at the end and the other is made into a blade, the one with the lump at the end is going to cause more blunt impact.

G

[Mr. Mask]

I'm a bit left out of the helmets discussion. Head protection worsens head trauma?

[Knaight]

At the level of abstraction we are talking about, it's not going to adequately cover the full range of physics and military kit. Bludgeon = armor piercing is not universal. But all else being equal, bludgeon > cut against metal armor is true.

It's probably generally worth at least breaking bludgeoning weapons into two big categories. Maces, hammers, etc. handle very differently from most wooden equipment, and most armor provides extremely good protection against clubs, staffs, etc.

[Incanur]

In the 15th century, Bertrandon de la Brocquière specifically mentioned how he thought Turkish maces could stun/knock unconscious through a helmet, at least if swung freely (translations vary).

Pero Niño (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yorku.ca%2Finpar%2Fgamez_evan s.pdf&ei=3OeuVO-wDIeQyASPsIKYCA&usg=AFQjCNFK0zni7leWJ3Z3k_B0739DchhFew&sig2=tZwBirlkOg1LVwZvNngdEQ&bvm=bv.83339334,d.aWw) supposedly did well striking mighty sword blows against armor.

In the middle of the 16th century, Juan Quijada de Reayo recommended the estoc and then the sword before the hammer for cavalry combat. But little in his instructions suggests using the estoc or sword as a bludgeon. On the whole, cavalry impact weapons (maces, hammers, axes) remained standard in Western Europe until being partially displaced by the pistol in the later 16th century. However, it's not clear that anyone considered impact weapons particularly effective for contests between heavily armored cavalry. Quijada de Reayo's text implies that the impact weapons was a backup weapon that came after swords before the dagger in preference.

It's important to remember that short impact weapons have many disadvantages compared with swords: inferior reach, limited to no thrusting ability, inferior balance, etc. Having to face a three-foot single-handed sword with a two-foot mace/hammer/axe in an unarmored duel would be a sad state of affairs. Impact weapons hit harder against armored heads but that's not necessarily better than the sword's ability thrust at the gaps. So system that makes short impact weapons the ideal weapon for men-at-arms fighting other men-at-arms wouldn't exactly match Western Europe in the age of plate.

Two-handed bludgeoning weapons are another story, though even here it's unclear whether hammer-type or beak/pick-type heads had major advantages over axe-type heads on polearms. Galloglaich and I have argued about this at least in the past. :smallsmile:

Two-handed maces seem awesome in theory and did see action in 15th and 16th centuries, but apparently they offered little if any advantage over the common blade-&-beak configuration of halberds and bills.

[Gnoman]

I'm a bit left out of the helmets discussion. Head protection worsens head trauma?

In combat sports with no form of head protection, blows to the head are usually a no-no. When you provide protection, they become valid targets and thus you get more head trauma.

In actual combat, head protection greatly increases injuries from head wounds by turning fatalities into survivable wounds. This almost led to the abandonment of the steel helmet in WWI before the higher ups realized that the sharp increase in head wounds corresponded to a drop in fatalities.

[Mr. Mask]

In combat sports with no form of head protection, blows to the head are usually a no-no. When you provide protection, they become valid targets and thus you get more head trauma.

In actual combat, head protection greatly increases injuries from head wounds by turning fatalities into survivable wounds. This almost led to the abandonment of the steel helmet in WWI before the higher ups realized that the sharp increase in head wounds corresponded to a drop in fatalities. Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for summing it up. I misread something in the discussion.

[Galloglaich]

Keep in mind the Turks had both large and small maces.


The point about wooden bludgeon weapons is an interesting one, but I think if it applies, it applies across the board to armored and unarmored targets. A wooden staff may not hit as hard as an iron flail but that is the same effect whether it's just clothing over your flesh and bones or lamellar over flesh and bone.

In game terms a staff just does a little less damage arguably, D6 vs. D8 for a mace or what have you. The AP effect is still the same.

A big thick hardwood club though probably does more damage than a light mace in some cases I'd suspect.


Regarding an earlier question about 'textile sandwich' armors like Brigandine and Wisby coats, which also existed in several forms in Japan and China, by the way, I think they break down into the following types:


Many very small plates, tightly spaced (usually sewn in). Like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_plate

Large plates, somewhat loosely spaced (sometimes sewn in, usually riveted) like this http://www.polarbearforge.com/cop/aamk1_wisby_coat_of_plates.jpg

Mixed large and smaller plates, but mostly smaller, tightly spaced and sometimes even overlapping (usually a mix of sewn in and riveted, or riveted) like this http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NktDgbG2VAM/UXf1mk6D1vI/AAAAAAAAAoE/h0rL4NKSxpI/s1600/Brigandine15thcentury4.jpg


Any of the three may be secured with rivets or just sewn in or some of both. I think rivets are better.

In addition, there is the issue of what kind of 'textile' is used, sometimes leather, sometimes silk, sometimes linen or some other textile.

G

[Spiryt]

I'm a bit left out of the helmets discussion. Head protection worsens head trauma?

The dangerous part in full contact striking, as far as head is concerned, is that clean punch or kick etc. carry huge amount of energy, momentum etc.

The huge momentum of kick or punch is transfered to the head, causing rapid acceleration - dangerous for the brain, spine, and other things in the head.

Padded, light helmet doesn't protect almost in any way against it, of course.

It protects against 'local' results of collision - cuts, bruises, breaks sometimes.

Doesn't address the main danger, so brain damage mostly.

With obvious inconveniences of such helmet, including, (according to some) limiting ability to see incoming blows - is why many professionals don't seem to like helmets in sparring that much.

This is at least how I understand it, at least

[snowblizz]

Two-handed bludgeoning weapons are another story, though even here it's unclear whether hammer-type or beak/pick-type heads had major advantages over axe-type heads on polearms. Galloglaich and I have argued about this at least in the past. :smallsmile:

Two-handed maces seem awesome in theory and did see action in 15th and 16th centuries, but apparently they offered little if any advantage over the common blade-&-beak configuration of halberds and bills.
One of my favourite weapons all categories is the type of two-handled morningstar Henry the 8th's guard used. Never managed to track down a good photo online.

Speaking of beak configuration. On a scale of 1-10 how incredibly badly would it end with beak hammer on a flail's chain? It stems from a conversion I did for a fantasy miniature wargaming (yes yes Warhammer) game for one of the over the top Ah-nold muscled barbarians. Chaos Marauder for those to whom that means something.
Basically the head of a crowbill replaces the head of a flail. Most people who see it go "oooh, coool! but waaait how does...ouch!!!!". Is there any conceivable scenario where it isn't utterly daft?

[Kiero]

With boxing gloves and head padding, I believe it doesn't actually make the injuries worse. What happens instead is that it normally hurts a lot to hit a skull with your fist, so boxing sports that don't use padding tend to avoid strikes at the head.
With boxing gloves and the like, you can hammer on your opponents head all day without hurting your hands, and so that's what's actually happening. A single unpadded strike to the head would certainly be worse than a padded one. But getting punched repeatedly, even with padding, is going to cause some serious damage to the brain in the long run.


Your skull is designed to withstand hard impacts on the surface, which prevent most of it being transmitted to your brain, which is suspended in fluid. Padded headguards and padded gloves cushion the surface impact, and instead transmit the force into the softer tissue underneath. Instead of a hard crack on your jawbone when a hook punch hits you, you have rotational accelerating force transmitted into your brain.

Boxing gloves exist primarily to protect the hands of the puncher, but also to stop the face of the punchee getting cut. Headguards exist to prevent the face of the wearer getting cut.

I do full contact kung fu. To be absolutely clear, I'd rather take a punch or kick to my unguarded head, than wear a headguard. Sure it hurts more at the point of impact, but it's not doing me any longer term harm. Besides which, without a headguard on, I'm less likely to get hit in the head.

[Galloglaich]

I wonder about the effects of sword hits on fencing masks? They seem much more effective to me than boxing headgear (having worn both) but I kind of wonder about all the hits we get, especially in tournaments when people hit crazy hard.

G

[Incanur]

I've received painful and perhaps evening stunning head hits in a fencing mask when sparring with Lance's Realistic Sparring Weapons (http://www.rsw.com.hk/) (single-handed sword simulators in this case). I was never knocked out or anything, though. I wouldn't want to take a hit from a rigid steel sword in a fencing mask, but maybe it's not as bad as it seems. I've never sparred with steel.

The Venetian Antonio Bavarin wrote some funny things about English two-handed maces in the early 16th century. He claimed an English army contained "12,000 with a weapon never seen until now, six feet in length, surmounted by a ball, with six steel spikes." Later he mentioned "iron maces fit to level not only men, but cities." Similar weapons existed in Italy, but apparently Bavarin hadn't seen them. Or perhaps he hadn't seen them in English hands until that point. I imagine soldiers equipped with two-handed maces would do the same service as halberdiers in the field.

[Mr. Mask]

Your skull is designed to withstand hard impacts on the surface, which prevent most of it being transmitted to your brain, which is suspended in fluid. Padded headguards and padded gloves cushion the surface impact, and instead transmit the force into the softer tissue underneath. Instead of a hard crack on your jawbone when a hook punch hits you, you have rotational accelerating force transmitted into your brain.

Boxing gloves exist primarily to protect the hands of the puncher, but also to stop the face of the punchee getting cut. Headguards exist to prevent the face of the wearer getting cut.

I do full contact kung fu. To be absolutely clear, I'd rather take a punch or kick to my unguarded head, than wear a headguard. Sure it hurts more at the point of impact, but it's not doing me any longer term harm. Besides which, without a headguard on, I'm less likely to get hit in the head. Any idea how it compares with hard helmets for motorcycling or combat? As Gnoman summed up, it does seem to prevent fatalities.

[Galloglaich]

Machete vs. hammer vs. badly armored oranges

https://vimeo.com/116306096

G

[SiuiS]

Roman sword with factory stamp:
http://natmus.dk/uploads/pics/Vimose_svaerd_stempel_C3799_05.jpg


Wait what? Factory stamp? How did try make swords that they had a factory stamp?


Indeed. Seax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax) and scramsax were very popular with the Saxons during the High Middle Ages (11th-13th centuries), but that might be because England lagged behind the rest of Europe for some reason.

I had the opportunity to handle a replica scramasax of a similar shape to this one (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax_of_Beagnoth)) once and I found it's an oddly weighted weapon as it had a very thick spine which shifts the balance further up the weapon than compared to something like a katana.

Huh. Have you ever used something like a Bowie knife? I always figured they would be somewhere between a Bowie and a small hatchet.


I could well believe that. I do full contact martial arts, and for certain types of sparring, we're supposed to wear head guards. Supposedly for "safety" but the reality is they stop you getting cut - they make brain injuries worse, when combined with padded gloves.

Anyway, the point here is that most people (myself included) hate wearing them, not least because they make your head sweat something chronic (lots of sweat running into your eyes) and mess with your vision (especially if someone knows the trick of throwing a hook punch to the guard, which spins it around across your eyes). That's something without a visor to enclose your breathing, add that in and I can't imagine it's terribly comfortable for more than a minute or so.

Hmm.

So you're saying that instead of having the shock disperse through your natural defenses, it never gets that far; it's like someone manually shaking your head vigorously?


With boxing gloves and head padding, I believe it doesn't actually make the injuries worse. What happens instead is that it normally hurts a lot to hit a skull with your fist, so boxing sports that don't use padding tend to avoid strikes at the head.
With boxing gloves and the like, you can hammer on your opponents head all day without hurting your hands, and so that's what's actually happening. A single unpadded strike to the head would certainly be worse than a padded one. But getting punched repeatedly, even with padding, is going to cause some serious damage to the brain in the long run.

Don't know that I agree. Boxing is a weapons art more than an unarmed one, now. For example, the single most efficient boxing punch is a hook, and the single most efficient bare handed punch is a straight punch. The boxing glove functions as a weapon. It changes force distribution and the mechanics of the body to deliver and generate the force.

Normally any crook or turn would bleed energy; instead you're turning the boxing glove into a flail's head. It accelerates on an arc, transmits all the force on a few inches at the edge of the pad, and can be devestating, kinetically. With your hand? You won't get as much force into their face as your own bones take a lot of the brunt and snap.

I would hazard that on a purely mechanical level, padded fuss will do more damage to the head because they aren't padded fists, but fist-assisted weighted bludgeons. The same force in padded will do less damage because the metacarpals become crumple zones, and the weight and balance just aren't there to make that arc acceleration into a danger like with the weighted glove.


In combat sports with no form of head protection, blows to the head are usually a no-no. When you provide protection, they become valid targets and thus you get more head trauma.

In actual combat, head protection greatly increases injuries from head wounds by turning fatalities into survivable wounds. This almost led to the abandonment of the steel helmet in WWI before the higher ups realized that the sharp increase in head wounds corresponded to a drop in fatalities.

Thats a good point, but I don't think that's it. It was that the helmet mechanically makes you less safe, not that it incentivizes getting hit in the head.


The dangerous part in full contact striking, as far as head is concerned, is that clean punch or kick etc. carry huge amount of energy, momentum etc.

The huge momentum of kick or punch is transfered to the head, causing rapid acceleration - dangerous for the brain, spine, and other things in the head.

Padded, light helmet doesn't protect almost in any way against it, of course.

That doesn't make sense. The point of padding is ablative kinetic bleed. Combinations of layered dense and less sense foam control deceleration of the incoming object. The foam should retain it's ability to slow down an incoming shot without being compromised unless the shot is continually accelerating.

Or do you mean that the reduction isn't sufficient to be worth acknowledging?

[Storm_Of_Snow]

While I agree with pretty much all the points about armour, remember that a professional soldier (whether modern day or historical) will train while wearing their armour, and so they will be used to it's limitations to an extent.

[Kiero]

Any idea how it compares with hard helmets for motorcycling or combat? As Gnoman summed up, it does seem to prevent fatalities.

Completely different dynamics at work. Padded helmet vs padded fist isn't like hard helmet vs bullet/floor.


Hmm.

So you're saying that instead of having the shock disperse through your natural defenses, it never gets that far; it's like someone manually shaking your head vigorously?

No, worse. The force doesn't disappear with padded helmets/gloves, it's converted into something that largely bypasses the natural defenses.

Bareknuckle boxing wasn't outlawed because it was causing long-term damage to the participants. It was outlawed because it was bloody.

[Yora]

Any idea how it compares with hard helmets for motorcycling or combat? As Gnoman summed up, it does seem to prevent fatalities.

When bones and muscles suffer light damage they will not only heal back, but will be made even stronger. (Which is evolutionary great, as this means a body can be optimized to deal with local dangers of its specific habitat.) Because of that, bone and muscle can shrug off and be made stronger by lots of small impacts, even though a single big impact might be lethal.
The brain is a different case. The damage from even small impacts to the head never fully heals, even though the pain goes away and any scratches and swelling will heal in time as well. Getting a medium to hard hit on the head is a rare event, and if you get two or three throughout your whole life, the long term damage might be minimal and not even detectable. But if you are practicing a sport where light impacts to the head are common and keep doing that for years and decades, you can suffer hundreds of seemingly negible bumps to the brain. And several hundred times "negible" can add up to a lot more damage than two "serious".

I am no expert of boxing history, but supposedly hits to the head were rather rare, or at least significantly less common than they are now with padded gloves, simply because you can hurt your hand quite badly like that.

On a different topic, can anyone give me recommendations for directing my research on warlords and tribal leaders who established their own kingdoms? (Regardless of the spicific titles the individual people used.) Are there any about there's some decent information available how they dealt with uniting lesser local leaders behind them?
I believe Charles Martel and Genghis Khan have been quite well studied. Any others to look into?

[Spiryt]

That doesn't make sense. The point of padding is ablative kinetic bleed. Combinations of layered dense and less sense foam control deceleration of the incoming object. The foam should retain it's ability to slow down an incoming shot without being compromised unless the shot is continually accelerating.

Or do you mean that the reduction isn't sufficient to be worth acknowledging?

Any 'deceleration' of incoming object will, at the end of the day, cause acceleration of what's in front of it.


Full power unarmed blows pretty much accelerate few good kilograms of human head violently.

Energy and momentum won't disappear in few ounces of padding somehow - padding will likely redistribute it somehow, but it cannot in any way affect whole kinetic chain.

http://i.imgur.com/bYmdHcX.gif

http://media.cagedinsider.com/wp-content/images/mma/2013/02/qz43eu.jpg.gif


Some of Mike Tyson in headgear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID5gnHHzR8A)

Sufficient padding 'redistribution' of impact can of course change the results a lot sometimes, maybe even help, but in general won't help much against good konockdown/knockout shot.


Your skull is designed to withstand hard impacts on the surface, which prevent most of it being transmitted to your brain, which is suspended in fluid. Padded headguards and padded gloves cushion the surface impact, and instead transmit the force into the softer tissue underneath. Instead of a hard crack on your jawbone when a hook punch hits you, you have rotational accelerating force transmitted into your brain.


Yeah, that's one of the theories - that gloves and other padding actually causes cleaner changes of momentum.

Dunno how much truth is in that, but bottom line is that padding doesn't change it much.


Don't know that I agree. Boxing is a weapons art more than an unarmed one, now. For example, the single most efficient boxing punch is a hook, and the single most efficient bare handed punch is a straight punch. The boxing glove functions as a weapon. It changes force distribution and the mechanics of the body to deliver and generate the force.

Normally any crook or turn would bleed energy; instead you're turning the boxing glove into a flail's head. It accelerates on an arc, transmits all the force on a few inches at the edge of the pad, and can be devestating, kinetically. With your hand? You won't get as much force into their face as your own bones take a lot of the brunt and snap.

'Crooking' or 'turning' doesn't bleed any energy... It's a mechanic of shifting weight, so generating any power with a hook.

Hooks can be arguably most powerful punches, no matter if gloves or not, because powerful rotational forces hips and back twist can generate.

Those ~ 8 ounces of weight (often way less with MMA or similar gloves) can't really stack in any way to the weight of whole arm, hand and shoulder area, and 'whipping' hand is in most cases not a way to land heavy punch.


Boxing gloves, or more importantly hand wraps without shade of doubt change the mechanics and impacts, but it's true for every single punch, simply.

Do you have any sources on that bigger difference with hook?

[Carl]

Those ~ 8 ounces of weight (often way less with MMA or similar gloves) can't really stack in any way to the weight of whole arm, hand and shoulder area, and 'whipping' hand is in most cases not a way to land heavy punch.

Just want to correct this. For an object traveling in an arc it's distance from the center of the arc squared times it's mass describes it rotational inertia. So being out on the end of the arm a boxing glove in a long arc would make it's mass very major. In fact under ideal circumstances it could total 3 times the momentum of the entirety of the rest of the arm. Real world will be a lot less, but it would not be extreme to see it match the arms own effect.

[Spiryt]

In fact under ideal circumstances it could total 3 times the momentum of the entirety of the rest of the arm. Real world will be a lot less, but it would not be extreme to see it match the arms own effect.

The hand itself, would likely be at very least 2 times heavier than a glove, and traveling at the same arc. I have rather slight hands and yet they weigh over 0.5 kg, which seems to be fairly typical weight of the hand according to the Internets.

While forearms, and arms, especially big and muscled ones will weight much, more more.

And throwing a hook is in no way 'simple' traveling in arc, since both for anatomical and practical reasons arc will get changed a lot, elbow may travel further away from the 'center' (or very close at least).

And center can easily change as well, due to footwork employed to add more speed by moving whole body.

Hopefully this gif will be decent example:

http://heavyweightblog.s3.amazonaws.com/knnimages/3headbuttsand2anvils.gif

All in all, difference in mass at the end definitely matters somehow, if puncher can achieve same velocity, but there's no reason to assume that hook in particular is being affected by it...

Jab will be heavier by those few ounces as well, after all.

[KnotKnormal]

How would one accurately represent what Hannibal did at The Battle of Cannae In the 2nd Punic War in a table top RPG?

[snowblizz]

I had the opportunity to handle a replica scramasax of a similar shape to this one (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax_of_Beagnoth)) once and I found it's an oddly weighted weapon as it had a very thick spine which shifts the balance further up the weapon than compared to something like a katana.

Interestingly I use a sax almost every day. Now granted that's because scissors in several Scandinavian languages are "sax", but the shape of the blade is pretty reminiscent of the seax, only there's two of them. Which always tends to trip me up, it's a *pair* of scissors, similarly in Finnish it's always in plural, because you have taken two blades and them together.

[Yora]

How would one accurately represent what Hannibal did at The Battle of Cannae In the 2nd Punic War in a table top RPG?
Depends entirely on the kind of game you want to play. It's generally not very useful in most RPGs, since individual fighters get no real benefit from fighting in formation as opposed to everyone fighting only for himself.

[Spiryt]

How would one accurately represent what Hannibal did at The Battle of Cannae In the 2nd Punic War in a table top RPG?

Final part of the battle, in which they apparently managed to completely ruin Roman's cohesion could probably be tried by something like that in D&D


In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn’t as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and a -4 penalty to AC. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#squeezing)

Not sure what you exactly want to do though.

That battle was rather huge, numerically, representing it in any other way than on very abstracted 'macro scale' would be rather problematic.

Something like D&D and most other taple tops generally deal with low amount of creatures.

[Mr. Mask]

That could be quite an interesting project, translating real world tactics into gamer language ("When two units attack one, the one's DPS is halved between the two, while he takes full DPS from the two units.").


But on the subject of formations, something someone told me comes to mind. They reckoned the effects of flaking and surrounding are exaggerated. They essentially said that when pressed from multiple sides, a military formation will charge into a circle, which doesn't have any strengths nor weaknesses. The main problem being that once engaged and in circle formation, the army unit can't manoeuvre and is bunched up, making it vulnerable to ranged attack.

Any thoughts on this? Certainly, if you hit a unit totally by surprise from the flank or rear, you can rout them altogether.

If you hit an enemy from the flank or rear, and they withstand the attack, are there any advantages you gain in the ensuing melee? My main thought is that the enemy's cohesion may be badly hurt from the surprise and from having to turn their men around. Some formations also have strong/weak points. A line formation has pretty weak flanks.

If you hit an enemy from two sides, what advantages would you attest having?

[Yora]

As the armchair general that I am, I see very important differences between ancient flanking and modern flanking.

In antiquity, when lots of warfare was done with phalanxes and soldiers with spears and shields lined up into tight shield walls, the unit really is protected only in a single direction, which is the front, where all the shields and spears are facing. And it's not just the men in the front row, but also the men in the second and third row bracing their shields against the backs of the men in front of them, so the enemy formation can't just push them over to land on the seat of their pants.
Now you could take four of these tripple rows and arrange them into a square (or a circle), but that makes it very difficult for those men who would have to walk sideways and backwards, and only a quarter of the soldiers would actually get into contact with the enemy. Since you don't want three quarters of your soldiers do nothing, phalanxes (and similar formations) usually march into battle in lines to have the maximum number of spears pointing at the enemy soldiers. The soldiers who are standing at the ends of those lines may be able to quickly turn 90 degrees and bring their spear and shield to face an aproaching flanking enemy, but they won't have a guy to brace their back. And it's even worse if the flanking actually strikes the formation from the back (very likely if the formation is not very deep). The flanking enemy simply has to deal with guys with spears and shields, but they are not facing a phalanx. And if the formation is already engaged in battle, I believe it very easily gets so tightly packed that the soldiers could not even turn around with their big shields and spears if they wanted to.

In modern warfare, I think the main advantage of flanking is a different one. In wars like we see today, at least since World War 2, the number of injuries and death are very low compared to the number of shots fired. Every soldier will individually try to get cover for himself with not a lot thought spend to maintaining unit formation (I am simplifying here). If you are behind cover, you are quite safe. But with modern guns, if you don't have cover, you can get shot very easily. The problem here is that cover only protects you in a single direction, or perhaps two in the best case. If an enemy gets behind you, your back is very likely to be completely exposed and anybody can easily shot you dead. Also, you don't have eyes in the back of your head, and when you are trying to fire at an enemy in front of you and lots of noise everywhere, it's easy to not notice what is going on behind you.
As I understand it, urban combat relies heavily on laying down surpressing fire so that some of your men can run forward while the enemy is ducking behind his cover, to get into a position from where your man has cover, but can peek around the enemies cover. When that happens, the only thing the enemy can do is to fall back, starting the whole game all over again. If you can get your men around the enemies sides and into his back, there is no more room to fall back to. And any cover you have will only shield you from one side, making you easy picking from the other three sides.
Now you could try to hole up in a building and place your men on all four walls so that nobody can get behind your back (since you formed a square or circle with guns facing outward), but in modern warfare that's the situation where grenades and artillery support come into play and you're still sitting ducks in your building.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong on anything here. This is just what I pieced together from lots of small bits over the years.

[Brother Oni]

That could be quite an interesting project, translating real world tactics into gamer language ("When two units attack one, the one's DPS is halved between the two, while he takes full DPS from the two units.").

Depends on the gamer language. Miniature war games have being doing this for years.



But on the subject of formations, something someone told me comes to mind. They reckoned the effects of flaking and surrounding are exaggerated. They essentially said that when pressed from multiple sides, a military formation will charge into a circle, which doesn't have any strengths nor weaknesses. The main problem being that once engaged and in circle formation, the army unit can't manoeuvre and is bunched up, making it vulnerable to ranged attack.

Depends on what the unit is armed with. Something like a phalanx very definitely has a 'this end towards enemy' and hitting them from the side or rear will pretty much break them.

In looser formations, if you don't don't keep cohesion then you get broken up and defeated in detail - in the Napoleonic era, cavalry was very good at doing this to infantry not in square formation (essentially a disciplined circle with lots of sharp pointy bits of metal aimed outwards to ward off the horses) or outside fortifications of some sort.

When surrounded, morale is likely to break, resulting in complete disintegration of a cohesive force and a one sided massacre. Even if they keep cohesion in a circle, a soldier is going to be keeping an eye on the front three or so men in front of him and not the man just out of his peripheral vision with a long spear about to stab him in the face. The man in front of that enemy is going to be busy with the other opponents in front to worry where that spear is going off to the far side.


In modern warfare, I think the main advantage of flanking is a different one.

In modern combat, flanking fire is known as enfilade fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilade_and_defilade) and is something you really want to avoid taking.

Tanks and other AFVs often have their heaviest armour facing the front, so again they're 'directional' in much the same way as ancient formations with an optimal 'this end towards enemy'.

[Storm Bringer]

That could be quite an interesting project, translating real world tactics into gamer language ("When two units attack one, the one's DPS is halved between the two, while he takes full DPS from the two units.").


But on the subject of formations, something someone told me comes to mind. They reckoned the effects of flaking and surrounding are exaggerated. They essentially said that when pressed from multiple sides, a military formation will charge into a circle, which doesn't have any strengths nor weaknesses. The main problem being that once engaged and in circle formation, the army unit can't manoeuvre and is bunched up, making it vulnerable to ranged attack.

Any thoughts on this? Certainly, if you hit a unit totally by surprise from the flank or rear, you can rout them altogether.

If you hit an enemy from the flank or rear, and they withstand the attack, are there any advantages you gain in the ensuing melee? My main thought is that the enemy's cohesion may be badly hurt from the surprise and from having to turn their men around. Some formations also have strong/weak points. A line formation has pretty weak flanks.

If you hit an enemy from two sides, what advantages would you attest having?

mechanically? not that many advantages, really. only the front ranks or the two or three on the side can fight in a battle.


but physiologically? the advantage is massive. one thing everybody warrior knows if that when a unit breaks, the slowest are the ones that die. to live, you need to be near the front if you can. hence, some people will try to get a head start on a rout by sliding to the back of a unit and trying to flee. It was an observed fact that routs started at the back of a unit.


When a unit is flanked, everyone in it realises that they need to start running now, if they want to get ahead of those guys on their flanks. hence, the more cowardly start to run. if enough start, then the braver men start to join them, and whole unit can literally fly apart in a matter of seconds.

[Galloglaich]

In modern combat, flanking fire is known as enfilade fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilade_and_defilade) and is something you really want to avoid taking.

Tanks and other AFVs often have their heaviest armour facing the front, so again they're 'directional' in much the same way as ancient formations with an optimal 'this end towards enemy'.

This

But keep in mind, this isn't unique to the modern world, it's characteristic of missile shots but also cavalry attacks as well (which are often done into the flank)

With missiles, (and you'll know this if you have ever had military training or done something like paintball) getting caught in an enfilade is how you get hit most easily, you can watch one direction and use cover and so on, but two directions at the same time is very difficult. This is usually what you try to accomplish with an ambush.

In medieval or Classical era warfare, you may have armies which are heavily armed with missiles, (bows, javelins, crossbows, or guns) and often, some or all of your protection is in the form of pavises or shields. Even the armor itself is usually much stronger facing forward than on the sides or rear (plate armor anyway is usually made this way). So being enfiladed is very dangerous.

I've read of several ambushes in the 15th Century that worked this way. One for example between a Scottish mercenary contingent of the French Royal Armagnac forces and the militia of Strasbourg in the 1440's. The Scots, in a force of about 1200 men were crossing a hill in order to raid a town, and the Strasbourgers, a group of about 200 crossbowmen, gunners and pavisemen, waited on a bluff overlooking a narrow valley the Scots would have to pass through. The Scots came around a corner and saw a barrier that had been built in front of them, then got hit with a fusillade of shots from the Strasbourgers. They were massacred and their commander was shipped back to Scotland as a courtesy, in a barrel of wine and olive oil.

This was also a very typical form of ambush used by Swedish peasants against the Danes, they would make a solid barrier called a bratar at a crucial point, often some kind of bend in the road so it couldn't be seen from far away, and there they would spring the ambush. One nuance they added was to leave an obvious escape route across a river or a lake, but one which they had already prepared by hacking a huge hole through the ice which was then covered with a thin layer of refrozen ice and snow.

Some Norwegian peasants did an ambush of this type, also against some Scots, in the early 17th Century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kringen

A book which mentions the bratar ambush tactic, (and note also something about an invasion of Dithmarschen)

https://books.google.com/books?id=U4yrAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=swedish+peasants+ambush+bratar&source=bl&ots=DoYAsDMKVl&sig=-YzLNL9KShC00WwA8H9nNGHGdEE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JyiwVLaRJ8u1sQSAloFA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=swedish%20peasants%20ambush%20bratar&f=false

G

[Gnoman]

While the physical advantages of flank or rear attacks are real, they are nothing compared to the morale advantages. Being attacked from more than one direction is fundamentally scary, and being attacked from behind is a powerful primal fear. Logic only makes this worse, as you'll immediately realise the consequences of being attacked from the side or rear, that you're cut off from friendly forces and are in grave danger.

[Storm Bringer]

This

The Scots came around a corner and saw a barrier that had been built in front of them, then got hit with a fusillade of shots from the Strasbourgers. They were massacred and their commander was shipped back to Scotland as a courtesy, in a barrel of wine and olive oil.

This was also a very typical form of ambush used by Swedish peasants against the Danes, they would make a solid barrier called a bratar at a crucial point, often some kind of bend in the road so it couldn't be seen from far away, and there they would spring the ambush.

G

L shaped ambush. blocking force in front to halt the enemy, flanking force to kill them as they take cover from the blocking force.

Still taught to soldiers today.

[oudeis]

On some of the bits about boxing in the previous few pages:


A hook isn't the most efficient strike in boxing, it's (possibly) the most effective: from what I've read, a theoretically perfect hook gets its power by swinging the arm as a rigid unit while torquing the torso and rotating the hips by pivoting on the ball of the front foot. The most efficient punch is the jab because of the simplicity and speed of the motion.
Bare-knuckle boxing was (officially) banned in many places during the 19th because too many fighters were getting killed in the ring. A solid temple shot with bare or wrapped hands can kill; gloves make that much less likely.
I think that we need to keep in mind that while headgear may lead to an increased chance of CTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy) due to the increased number of head shots you are able to endure while continuing to function, this is a phenomenon that occurs over an extended period of repeated impacts. In the short term it's far better to have the protection.
I'd forgotten how good Tyson's uppercut was when he was in his prime. Holy GOD.

[Spiryt]

A hook isn't the most efficient strike in boxing, it's (possibly) the most effective: from what I've read, a theoretically perfect hook gets its power by swinging the arm as a rigid unit while torquing the torso and rotating the hips by pivoting on the ball of the front foot. The most efficient punch is the jab because of the simplicity and speed of the motion.


I think the more accurate adjective would be that jab is most important punch in boxing, and extremely important in any form of striking or unarmed combat - because of it's tactical importance.

As in, usage of it to bind, control, bait, misdirect opponent, and generally set up other strikes.

[Brother Oni]

Wait what? Factory stamp? How did try make swords that they had a factory stamp?

Do you mean how they effectively mass produced swords or how they put the stamp on?



Huh. Have you ever used something like a Bowie knife? I always figured they would be somewhere between a Bowie and a small hatchet.


I've not had the chance to handle a Bowie knife or other type of survival knife so I can't say. A hatchet would be a bit end heavy compared to a long scramasax though - the balance is further up the blade, but not enough to be awkward, like a baseball bat say.

[Thiel]

Every soldier will individually try to get cover for himself with not a lot thought spend to maintaining unit formation (I am simplifying here).
While it's not immediately obvious modern soldiers do fight in formations, they're just very different from what most people think of when you say formation. It's acualy quite interesting to watch news footage and seeing how different nations place their machine gunners etc.

[SiuiS]

I think I just google searches my way to the conversation I want to have~



No, worse. The force doesn't disappear with padded helmets/gloves, it's converted into something that largely bypasses the natural defenses.

Bareknuckle boxing wasn't outlawed because it was causing long-term damage to the participants. It was outlawed because it was bloody.

Okay, but how? I am having a hard time getting it because the math just isn't panning out in my head. What in the equation of delivering kinetic energy changes enough to make this happen? At a grosse level for ease of example, it feels like the difference between snapping or pushing a strike. One will launch intended to deliver the energy on landing, the other will launch and continue to pump out energy. One hits and the other pushes. But... The numbers aren't coming together in my head.

And I knew that! Or was told that and believed it, whether or not is true. :3

E: maybe relevant?

Furthermore, as you mentioned in your discussion of impulse, the longer time a force is applied to an object (follow through), the greater the transfer of force (really energy). A high velocity punch is most important for this, as the fist will decelerate over a greater length of time (punching through an object). Lastly, objects act more rigid in collisions at higher velocity, thus a high velocity technique will be more damaging.

Follow through may mean that you're delivering energy longer than without the helmet, maybe?


Any 'deceleration' of incoming object will, at the end of the day, cause acceleration of what's in front of it.

Technically true but misleading. If you fall out of a building onto a cushion it'll decelerate you, and you'll accelerate back up to stand. But it's nowhere near an even equation because the main component of the shock, time, changes. Padding alters the variable t and reduces the, for lack of a better immediate term, DPS because it's maybe same damage but more seconds. And with natural resilience in play, spreading out the force over time or area can reduce damage rather than slow it down.

And we aren't talking about knockout blows. We're talking in general. In general, From every punch, a padded helmet changes the math to make getting hit more dangerous. I'm trying to explore why. You may be right. It may not be enough to matter. But someone I trust says it is, so I'm looking into it. :)



Energy and momentum won't disappear in few ounces of padding somehow - padding will likely redistribute it somehow, but it cannot in any way affect whole kinetic chain.

Redistributing it out of the area is functionally making it dissapear somehow.



'Crooking' or 'turning' doesn't bleed any energy... It's a mechanic of shifting weight, so generating any power with a hook.

Every bend is a joint held in place by muscular force that's fighting against other muscular force. Stab someone with a hinges spear, perfectly straight, all the energy goes into the spear. Bend the hinge just a degree or three and do the same, and you lose force through redistribution. This is a basic physics thing.

Any system is only as strong as it's weakest component. Every additional bend means you have bones not lines up for optimal force absorption and resistance. This means they may bend. Bending means force generated is not being delivered. I referenced crumple zones in cars on purpose; one segment collapsing eats at the total energy delivered. If your shoulder, elbow, wrist all bend when you connect, you've lost energy. If your bone breaks, you've lost energy as well – it's now moving lateral along with the lever that is your metacarpal. Or not being transfered as one end of said metacarpal slides alongside the other end and does not continue as a single system anymore.

Crooks and turns very much do bleed energy. It's not theory. It's math. Whether it's always relevant can be debated. The force generated by a good hook exceeds the force lost when you're a good boxer and wearing gloves. Without gloves, boxer's breaks are nature's way of saying 'no, dummy, that was a bad idea' and the force lost is a lot higher. You won't always break a bone, but then you'll likely not swing as hard, both mentally and because the math is different, due to the glove being a half pound less weight.



Those ~ 8 ounces of weight (often way less with MMA or similar gloves) can't really stack in any way to the weight of whole arm, hand and shoulder area, and 'whipping' hand is in most cases not a way to land heavy punch.


That's pretty ridiculous a claim :S. For one, the whole arm is balanced much differently than a similar system with extra weight at one end; look at a sword and hammer with identical mass. Yes, you could quibble an arm isn't built like a sword, but the point is that mass alone isn't enough information.

For two, you're doing bad science. It's not arm versus glove. It's arm versus arm+glove. The glove is a weight, it shifts balance, and it changes the nature of contact drastically. It also alters the movement of the arm through space to deliver energy.



Do you have any sources on that bigger difference with hook?

Math, study of body mechanics, and discussions with boxers and other martial artists. Let's see what I can dig up.

Bah! Nothing good. I have a book on it I left at school a year or two ago, but that's not helpful. I did find this though.


That acceleration increases velocity of the fist upon impact. This is important because it leads us to Kinetic Energy, which is a much better concept to model the potential power in a punch. Kinetic Energy = 1/2Mass x (velocity squared) or KE=1/2m(v^2). So what is kinetic energy? It’s difficult to define, but basically it is related to how much force will be exerted on the head. The reason is that in a system, the change in KE is equal to Work done. Work is Force*distance over which the force is applied.

First, it reminds me to use acceleration, not velocity, for force. Second, it gives an easy equation; we could do manual calculations to see where the benefits and losses appear, when adjusting mass incrementally, if we can also know how that increased mass will affect acceleration in the first place. It's a start, if nothing else.



While forearms, and arms, especially big and muscled ones will weight much, more more.

Now add a weight at the contact point with a bevel perfect for delivering energy.


And throwing a hook is in no way 'simple' traveling in arc, since both for anatomical and practical reasons arc will get changed a lot, elbow may travel further away from the 'center' (or very close at least).

The end-product arc of the fist, mate. The mechanics to generate a hook internally may be complex; the actual line of the fist is not so much.



All in all, difference in mass at the end definitely matters somehow, if puncher can achieve same velocity, but there's no reason to assume that hook in particular is being affected by it...

Jab will be heavier by those few ounces as well, after all.

There is actually!

A jab will land on a broad flat plane, easily in the 25^2" range, on a material designed to at least partially mitigate the delivery. A hook is made to land on a corner providing a thin wedge of approximately 4^2" in a way that does not give.

Boxers work in hooks because they recognize that they work really well. Folks looking into this have noticed that they work really well in boxing gloves, and that other shots don't change function as much.


On some of the bits about boxing in the previous few pages:

•A hook isn't the most efficient strike in boxing, it's (possibly) the most effective: from what I've read, a theoretically perfect hook gets its power by swinging the arm as a rigid unit while torquing the torso and rotating the hips by pivoting on the ball of the front foot. The most efficient punch is the jab because of the simplicity and speed of the motion.

A weasel word on my part, sorry. Efficient only takes into account the goal. Delivering a lot of force in little time, a jab is less efficient than a hook. It's also less efficient than diving off a table into a cross. This silliness illustrates why sloppy use of the word efficient goes south quick!

My mistake was that I've had this discussion before at least ten times, probably more. I'm leaving out ground I feel like I've covered. A hook is said to be the strongest punch in boxing. I started talking about punching strictly in the sense of a force delivery mechanism, mass times velocity squared, with velocity being movement over time.

From a simpler position of energy used to energy transmitted a jab is indeed superior. It's an important tool. The discussion as I framed it just necessitated blinders of a sort. I find dissembling into every potential exception dilutes my ability to convey things. :)



• Bare-knuckle boxing was (officially) banned in many places during the 19th because too many fighters were getting killed in the ring. A solid temple shot with bare or wrapped hands can kill; gloves make that much less likely.

Oh my. That's a good point.


• think that we need to keep in mind that while headgear may lead to an increased chance of CTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy) due to the increased number of head shots you are able to endure while continuing to function, this is a phenomenon that occurs over an extended period of repeated impacts. In the short term it's far better to have the protection.

That's what I'm interested in finding out!


Do you mean how they effectively mass produced swords or how they put the stamp on?

The mass production. Vague memories, nothing Solid. I think I chalked it up to the same folks who believes medieval knights used forty pound swords to hack through armor.



I've not had the chance to handle a Bowie knife or other type of survival knife so I can't say. A hatchet would be a bit end heavy compared to a long scramasax though - the balance is further up the blade, but not enough to be awkward, like a baseball bat say.

Hmm. By hatchet I meant something like this;

http://i1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee468/WizardPony/Mobile%20Uploads/F7C7B295-2A85-45FE-BF5E-E5B056C22EC8.jpg

But having pulled it out of storage I realize it's actually much different than I remember. The baseball bat analogy is apt. I think my first thoughts on getting the big knives like the Bowie were 'like a club, almost'. The concern over balance has kept me from getting a seax, actually, but that's ridiculous as I could always just up my wrist strength...


E: I lost an asterisk in here somewhere and won't find it without a cold read. If anyone can locate it, lemme know. I'll put in the footnote I forgot while typing <_<

[JustSomeGuy]

As I understand it, the headguard adds mass to the outside of the skull so any torque on the neck/brain (from being punched) creates greater acceleration-deceleration. Not a massive increase like 2x or anything, but significant enough to be noticeable.

With regards gloves, I recall something like a similar amount of force reduction between 8oz and 12-16oz gloves but a major difference between 8oz and bare hands, although it was tested on one of those dubious pseudo science shows so was probably wrong to start with even before including my shady memory of it.

Bare knuckle boxing: assuming some 'conditioning' of the hands from bag work etc. the majority of your punches will not be affected by punching someone in the head; it's only when a punch lands wierdly (glances across the face contacting with the fingers, for example) or the hand/wrist muscles fatigue to the point of not bracing properly before contact that allows for the movements in the hand that mess it right up.

Finally, my n=1 data is that a hook is the most powerful punch, but if you are fighting without gloves then a lot of hooks will land on the sides of the head (solid, little soft tissue to damage and sometimes coveted with hair) whereas straight punches will primarily hit the face, which is much messier anatomically and practically. So although the straight punches are less powerful they do more meaningful damage unless the hook can produce a knockout.

[Carl]

@SiuiS: I really hate having to restate this every few pages but once again when it comes to things like acceleration/deceleration it is conservation of momentum that matter, not conservation of energy, (since CoM will always dictate a lower velocity than CoE). This is where the glove really effects things, extra mass is extra mass is extra momentum and unlike KE momentum only changes with the velocity, not the square of the velocity. As such if you get 10% more mass at the cost of 5% velocity, (hypothetical figure), you've got a net increase in momentum. Of course it's true velocity affect impact time and so force applied. But most forms of acceleration mechanism, including the human muscle has a fundamental velocity limit, if a non-gloved punch approaches that limit the acceleration of the arm over the whole blow may be poor in the later half. As such the increase in mas could conceivably result in no velocity change. You can also use conservation of momentum to produce a whipping effect radically increasing the velocity beyond that which human muscles could easily move the arm at.

Secondly rotational physics for momentum and energy is wildly different than conventional linear physics.

Thirdly the elbow is a joint, it will bend under sufficient force weather it's crooked or not, (and no useful punch has it uncrooked anyway), the muscles on it determine the maximum force transfer. All that stuff about crumple zones just doesn't apply here because their not a comparable items. A crumple zone is inflexible most of the time. An elbow is never inflexible.

That said if you watch a hook follow through you'll notice that in most instances the elbow bend either remains unchanged or it extends outward against the force of the impact.

@Spiryt: Whilst all that's true, (i was being simplistic as ushual when trying to avoid too much physichs dump), the forearm is quite light , (for a 12 stone person approximately 1.1KG's), and most hooks have at the moment of impact the forearm and especially the fist as the most distant component radially, and it's the value at contact that matters in the end, though it could easily produce a whipping effect. and 8 ounces is around 0.25KG's so it's significant, given the drastically smaller rotational radi of the rest of the body relative to the fist and forearm will keep their rotational inertia low and thus their contribution low.

[Yora]

As I understand it, the headguard adds mass to the outside of the skull so any torque on the neck/brain (from being punched) creates greater acceleration-deceleration. Not a massive increase like 2x or anything, but significant enough to be noticeable.
No. Added mass increases the innertia of an object like the head. An object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by an outside force. A punch with a fixed amount of energy will acelerate a head with greater mass slower than a head with smaller mass. Or think of kicking a football and a bowling ball. One will be shoting away into the sky, the other merely roll a little bit.


The mass production. Vague memories, nothing Solid. I think I chalked it up to the same folks who believes medieval knights used forty pound swords to hack through armor.
I believe it would have been as simple as setting up several forges next to each other and getting a dozen blacksmiths to work on the same site. They can get their iron ingots and charcoal directly from the supplier in bulk, and each workshop wouldn't have to compete on the open local market, since they either are employed directly by the government, or are on a permanent contract with it.

That assumed Roman swords, which I believe we were talking about here.
In medieval central Europe, such a large workshop with multiple weaponsmiths on the same site would still work if they are creating products with a quality high enough that even non-local warriors will pay extra to import one.

[Spiryt]

Technically true but misleading. If you fall out of a building onto a cushion it'll decelerate you, and you'll accelerate back up to stand. But it's nowhere near an even equation because the main component of the shock, time, changes. Padding alters the variable t and reduces the, for lack of a better immediate term, DPS because it's maybe same damage but more seconds. And with natural resilience in play, spreading out the force over time or area can reduce damage rather than slow it down.

I really don't see a way for that difference in 't' to be in any way meaningful.

Head in padding hit hard starts to twist right away, it's not like there's any 'delay'.

Cushion enough to decelerate something drastically could theoretically work, but it's hard to walk around with mattress around your head.


Redistributing it out of the area is functionally making it dissapear somehow.

Of course, which is why padding/gloves actually work great as far as preventing breaks, bruises, cuts and whatever else goes. Don't think anybody will dispute that. It 'disappears' from one specific point.

It cannot change the fact that all that energy still goes somewhere in the head/neck, and that's why it's being snapped back.


Every bend is a joint held in place by muscular force that's fighting against other muscular force. Stab someone with a hinges spear, perfectly straight, all the energy goes into the spear. Bend the hinge just a degree or three and do the same, and you lose force through redistribution. This is a basic physics thing.

teh shortenings
he force generated by a good hook exceeds the force lost when you're a good boxer and wearing gloves. Without gloves, boxer's breaks are nature's way of saying 'no, dummy, that was a bad idea' and the force lost is a lot higher. You won't always break a bone, but then you'll likely not swing as hard, both mentally and because the math is different, due to the glove being a half pound less weight.


Of course bending will rob you out of the force, but you really would have to prove that joins bend significantly more during hooking than any other punch.

Not to mention that human joints work best while slightly bent anyway, this is how humans perform 99% of stuff, rarely with straight arm...

Pretty much any cross while have significant amount of bent as well.

You can watch someone like Igor Vovchanchyn throwing brutal hooks in his 90s no gloves or straight out bare knuckle fights, with no 'force lost'.

Some quick example with Wanderlei Silva instead (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgwtur_wanderlei-silva-vs-artur-mariano-ivc2_sport)

Breaking hands is of course danger, with every punch, though not just hooks.

In short, 'most powerful punch' is generally endless discussion, depends on many things, some people will swear on broad overhand rights, some on long hooks with a lot of torque, depends on people.

But no matter of gloves, tapping or lack of, hooking motion generates huge impact in punch, and people will throw it. It's all about body motion.


That's pretty ridiculous a claim :S. For one, the whole arm is balanced much differently than a similar system with extra weight at one end; look at a sword and hammer with identical mass. Yes, you could quibble an arm isn't built like a sword, but the point is that mass alone isn't enough information.

Punching is about legs back and shoulder anyway.

And yes, glove will change the feeling and mechanics a bit, but again, it's relevant to about every punch, or even moving arms around, without punching. That's why this focus on 'hooks' is weird.


A jab will land on a broad flat plane, easily in the 25^2" range, on a material designed to at least partially mitigate the delivery. A hook is made to land on a corner providing a thin wedge of approximately 4^2" in a way that does not give.

Not sure if I understand correctly, but hook can absolutely land the same way as jab. There's in no way one method to throw hooks.

It will land differently depending on punchers own preference, tactics and randomness, of course, since opponent is reacting.

Landing thumb down, thumb in, with the knuckles, or with the tumb first. etc.

[Carl]

I really don't see a way for that difference in 't' to be in any way meaningful.

Easy:

F=MA, (you should know what this means).

A = (u-v)/t

Where u is starting velocity and v is ending velocity and t is time.

For a given change in velocity a smaller time means greater acceleration which per the first equations equals more force.

[Spiryt]

Do you mean how they effectively mass produced swords or how they put the stamp on?

Can't speak about that particular sword, but stamp on sword cannot in any way confirm that it was 'mass produced'. Just like swords without any can be mass produced.:smallwink:


It's just easy, if crude way to mark it - have proper stamp and hit it hard, probably when iron is still hot and softer.

In that late period, Romans did apparently have couple of large scale fabricae producing weapons

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03085/abstract

But it's still arguable how and if something like sword could be 'mass produced' because due to nature of their technology, each sword blade in particular would be somehow individual item, not very standardized.


Where u is starting velocity and v is ending velocity and t is time.

For a given change in velocity a smaller time means greater acceleration which per the first equations equals more force.

Eh, I understand that - this is why punching cotton will produce different force of impact than punching a marble block.

What I'm questioning is how a bit of padding can really change that time in meaningful manner.

Watch any video of someone getting punched hard with gear on - there's no real difference, someone get's punched, and his head starts to twist right away.

To really cause any serious 'delaying' one would need something like air bag which is obviously not realistic.

[Kiero]

Punching is about legs back and shoulder anyway.

Indeed, any punch thrown with just the arm or arm and shoulder is going to be much weaker than one thrown with the whole body. A punch starts on the ground, power is generated with your legs, transmitted through the hips into the upper body and from there into the arm via shoulder. You can throw a pretty powerful hook punch without moving your arm at all, locking it in position and throwing from your hips.

[Spiryt]

Indeed, any punch thrown with just the arm or arm and shoulder is going to be much weaker than one thrown with the whole body. A punch starts on the ground, power is generated with your legs, transmitted through the hips into the upper body and from there into the arm via shoulder. You can throw a pretty powerful hook punch without moving your arm at all, locking it in position and throwing from your hips.

I think the 'power' is somehow misleading term - I've found Jack Dempsey "Championship Fighting: Explosive punching and aggressive defense" first few chapters very enlightening about theory part.

Bit 'contaminated' by 'learn to street fight at home' elements, but explains it nicely.

Punching, or striking in general is about weight transfer. Body has to 'fall' in coordinated direction to achieve most possible energy.

'Power' of muscles is used both to direct the 'fall' and to provide additional velocity by springing off the ground and twisting/swinging.

Body is traveling from one feet to another, pivoting around leg, jolting forward etc. and hand and arm are just what provides effective collision.

If you swung around hand sized object on a string (somehow making it stable etc.) really fast, using whole body weight it obviously wouldn't have anything near the impact of a punch.

[Galloglaich]

That assumed Roman swords, which I believe we were talking about here.
In medieval central Europe, such a large workshop with multiple weaponsmiths on the same site would still work if they are creating products with a quality high enough that even non-local warriors will pay extra to import one.

In medieval central Europe such large workshops were the norm for any large scale iron based production, including for swords, armor, and iron parts for ships and buildings and horse tackle and so on, based on water mills. Swords were not usually made by some sweaty village blacksmith, but by highly organized guilds in towns, and by carefully organized workshops in abbeys and castles.

The heavier work was done in places like this (note the water-powered bellows, this is what they called a Catalan Forge):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_35v_H%C3%BCttenwerk.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_36r_H%C3%BCttentechnik.jpg

Then the finer work, for example sharpening, polishing, and assembling swords was done by subcontractors in workshops like these

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Balthasar_Behem_Codex01.jpg/522px-Balthasar_Behem_Codex01.jpg

http://www.nuernberger-hausbuecher.de/75-Amb-2-279-14-r/large

Swedish swordsmith and researcher Peter Johnsson has a good article here explaining the extremely sophisticated manner in which medieval swords were designed, here

http://www.peterjohnsson.com/higher-understanding-and-deeper-reckoning/

The sweaty village blacksmith basically makes horse-shoes and nails, though of course they could also make crude weapons in a pinch. But sword making was a highly organized activity in medieval times, and cutlers (sword makers) were well paid professionals working in complex organizations.

G

[Yora]

Can anyone tell me about the goals and motives of warfare in "non-state societies". I am thinking of warlords who basically have their own private armies who they pay with their personal funds and who are loyalty to them in person instead of some kind of organization.

I believe at the most basic part, there is simply a need for private security to protect your property (land and animals) in the absence of a national police or military. Simply to guard against bandits. If your private force becomes to big to support it just from the income you make with your property, it seems to be the common practice to just send your warriors to attack and loot some other place and the spoils will be their payment.
But are there more complex reasons why wealthy local landowners go to war with each other with their private armies than just that?
Raiding your neighbours for the purpose of being able to protect yourself against being raided by your neighbours would be paradoxical. Once that circle has started it can obviously keep itself going for a very long time. But I don't believe that it is inherent human nature to start fights to prevent fights. It's a classic prisoners dilemma, but I don't think it's normal that people would preemtively strike at anyone who could conceivably become a threat at some point.
There must surely be additional factors that set such perpetual systems of raiding and counter-raiding into motion. My first guess would be economical. Does anyone know anything about that?

Natural disasters that lead to famine would be a good candidate. Basically the standard Zombie Apocalypse setup.

[snowblizz]

Can anyone tell me about the goals and motives of warfare in "non-state societies". I am thinking of warlords who basically have their own private armies who they pay with their personal funds and who are loyalty to them in person instead of some kind of organization.

My first guess would be economical. Does anyone know anything about that?

Natural disasters that lead to famine would be a good candidate. Basically the standard Zombie Apocalypse setup.
-That guy has shiny and I don't.
-You are not the boss of me. And I'd like to be the boss of you.
-Hands of my woman. And I chose to define "my woman" a little too broadly.
-That's not how you wear a hat! Die heathen.
-You ain't a man until you kill one. Or two. Or two thousand.

Really, humans go to war at the drop of the hat. Sometimes literally. Pretty much any human emotion is a cause for war, if you can get away with it.

[Cealocanth]

Can anyone tell me about the goals and motives of warfare in "non-state societies". I am thinking of warlords who basically have their own private armies who they pay with their personal funds and who are loyalty to them in person instead of some kind of organization.

In early societies run by a warlord or chieftain or similar, war operates on the needs of the person in charge. People may say that they go to war for reasons like honor or glory or conquest (like the wars described in the Illiad), but there is increasing anthropological evidence that the only reason people will raid and kill other people is because of resources. The other guy has a thing you want, so you throw your men at him to get the thing, and then you have all the things until you find someone else who has a different thing you want. If someone is upset that you took said thing, or wants your thing, you go to war with him too, and if you can, take his things. With early tribal groups, the war is very much over distribution of food, hunting or agricultural territory, or even for the right to marry someone. With the level of society you're discussing, it also may be over controlling large sections of territory and the people within, such as dominating a city. Early warfare in such societies can be closely compared to gang warfare in more decrepit modern cities. Sure, they may decide to fight to teach the rival gang a lesson or 'show them who's boss', but more often than not, it is to secure some 'turf' or some resources they may have.

No, this is not a very secure way to run a society, but is was how it was done until one particular group got so powerful as to conquer all other groups in the local area. The so called "Great Generals" of early history were often these individuals with the intuition and luck to get enough territory to make it worth forming a government to protect it. (Any examples of this probably fall under 'real world politics' though, sorry for the lack thereof.) After there is a government to provide a decent amount of defense, then people can start to theorize and reorganize society and make society much less war reliant.

Edit: The poster below has some good information on later period warlord societies. The stuff I'm talking about is for pre-classical era groups.

[Galloglaich]

Can anyone tell me about the goals and motives of warfare in "non-state societies". I am thinking of warlords who basically have their own private armies who they pay with their personal funds and who are loyalty to them in person instead of some kind of organization.
.

This was actually the case in the medieval world for centuries, so you don't really need to speculate.


Holy Roman Empire, 1250 AD:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/holy-roman-empire-1250-map-1.jpg

Holy Roman Empire 1400 AD:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/HRR_1400.png

Holy Roman Empire 1789 AD:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/HRR_1789_EN.png

Most of Central Europe was what you would call today a 'failed state' for more than 500 years. Think about that for a minute. The Holy Roman Empire is the most obvious to look at on a map, since it had hundreds of small polities or mini-states, using dozens of different political systems, and every one of them were armed.

The HRE was certainly the most decentralized, but ironically it was actually one of the most peaceful internally (at least until the big religious wars started in the 16th Century). The neighboring states including those with strong Monarchies (particularly the 'pure' primogeniture systems) were often actually even more internally violent and chaotic, since they were typically fighting over succession either continuously or every few generations and struggling for internal control. England for example was frequently involved in wars between it's ruling families, like that between the Starks and the Lannisters... sorry Yorks and Lancasters ;), and France went through a series of dynastic struggles and wars between it's purported Monarch and various powerful regional princes around the country, as well as it's neighbors more or less continuously through the middle ages.

Northern Italy was originally part of the Holy Roman Empire (as you can see in the 1250 map) but became independent after the Lombard League defeated the Emperor, but from that point onward suffered from continuing internal strife between City-States and princes (and each other) as well as constant foreign invasions. Southern Italy was both more stable and a lot more poor - ever since the Romans turned it into a Latifundia zone it had lost the city-state tradition of Magna Graeca and become a kingdom with only a few important cities which were royal capitols (Naples) and a lot of poor farmers and nobles.

Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, and Austria, as well as the many smaller regions of East-Central Europe, had elected monarchies, so the first born son of the last King wasn't automatically the new King. This was arguably better since it helped prevent fights for control with each new generation (or every time a dynasty died out) and didn't require an incompetent ruler to inherit the throne. In Poland, after a lot of dynastic troubles in the early and high middle ages, they intentionally made the King weak, sufficient to deal with foreign military threats but checked by the power of the massive nobility from becoming autocratic. Bohemia was similar (intentionally weak monarchy with strong regional power centers) though also partly fuzed to the Holy Roman Empire, and also more urbanized than Poland. Prussia and Livonia were controlled by Theocratic military Crusader-states, the Teutonic Order and the Livonian Order respectively. Both were originally very strong States, though both were challenged by their cities and by their neighbors and gradually crumbled once all their ostensible enemies (Lithuanians and other Baltic people) had at least nominally converted to Christianity. Hungary and Austria were under strong pressure from first the Mongols and then the Ottomans; Austria became a princely state under the Hapsburgs and Hungary essentially collapsed under the Muslim onslaught after centuries of fighting.



To answer your specific question though about why mini-states would fight one another, different types of mini-states fight for different reasons. In Central, Southern, and Northern Europe you basically have eight types:


Kingdoms more or less coherently organized, like France, Castille, or England
Princedoms, small miniature kingdoms controlled by powerful noble families like the Prince Electors of the Holy Roman Empire (such as in Brandenburg or Austria);
City-States controlled by a single large, powerful city like Bruges, Nuremberg or Venice*;
Miniature 'failed states' mixed areas with cities and small nobles but no real princely family like Silesia or Moravia;
Miniature 'composite states' made up of city-leagues (like the Pentapolitana, the Lusatian league) or combined city / peasant communes (like the Swiss Confederation)
Theocratic City-States like Rome or Trier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier#History)
Theocratic -Military States like the Deutschordensstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Teutonic_Order) of the Teutonic Order, the Terra Mariana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Mariana) of the Livonian Order, or the maritime States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Malta_under_the_Order_of_Saint_John) of the Hospitalers of Rhodes
Non-theocratic colonial states like the Genoese colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feodosia#Caffa) at Caffa in the Crimea in the Black Sea or the Venetian colonies at Cypress or along the Dalmatian Coast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Albania)



Each of these types of political entities or quasi-states had their own reasons for fighting. Some types were more or less aggressive, more or less reckless, and more or less consistent.

Small to medium level Warlords tended to fight over succession and in attempts to gain territory. They often fought their own families or closely related rival families, ala game of thrones. They tended to be extremely reckless, and they did indeed often despoiled their enemies land so that he wouldn't despoil theirs. This caused regional problems. They also frequently raided neighbors and robbed or imposed heavy tolls on caravans or passing ships, which put them into direct conflict with more powerful polities like princes and city-states.

Powerful secular princes (Fürst in Germany, or Magnates in Poland, Knyaz in Russia, Grandees in Spain, Dukes, Counts or Barons in other places) also fought wars of succession, but their dynasties tended to be more stable than either smaller nobles or Kings. They fought wars to control and subdue minor nobles and keep the peace when they were fighting each other (which could be very bad for the economy) and towns in their own territories, and fought to take over neighboring states. They ranged from conservative to very aggressive - the more conservative ones tended to last longer but didn't grow, the more aggressive ones either flared out and disappeared, or became the key princely states of Central Europe like Brandenburg or Austria.

Prince-Prelates like the Pope or the Prince-Archbishop-Elector of Trier were similar to Princes but tended to be more cautious. They would go after heretics like the Albigensians or the Bohemian Hussites at every opportunity and would try to build coalitions and Crusades to defeat such enemies.

City States were even more cautious, generally speaking, but fought for self defense against Princes and Kings, fought other City - States (especially in Italy) to expand their territory or for strategic defense, and fought to control trade routes, monopolies and to control commodities like alum, salt or tin.

Stateless areas like Silesia fought for internal control and to control the 'peace of the roads', as well as sometimes joining together to invade neighbors.

Small confederations like the Pentapolitana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentapolitana) or the Lusatian League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_League) or the Decapole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9capole) tended to fight only for local control of the 'peace of the roads' and to prevent foreign invasions.

Large Confederationslike the Swiss fought foreign invaders, fought neighbors to expand their territory, and fought as mercenaries. They tended to be very aggressive about their own borders but also conservative about major foreign adventures and internally relatively peaceful.

Theocratic Military States like the Teutonic Order, the Templars, Hospitalers and some of the Spanish military orders would fight their pagan enemies continuously. The Teutonic Knights raided Lithuania 2 or 3 times per year for more than 200 years. Wrap your head around that for a minute. They also fought for internal control which they were pretty good at, typically either suppressing or enlisting into their own disciplined state most petty-nobles and towns. They had trouble with the larger towns eventually. And they often bickered with their neighbors (like the Teutonic Order with Poland or the Livonian Order with Russia).


Interregnums
One of the other main reasons mini-States would fight each other is when their neighbor was weak. This happened almost every generation with some Kingdoms and most Princely territories or small nobles lands, since there was almost always some uncertainty over who the new ruler would be and the attentions of the ruling parties would be on working out the new pecking order with each other instead of dealing with their neighbors.

Sometimes this meant that they would lose just a little territory around their fringes (for a big Kingdom like France, say) or more rarely, major invasions like that of England which started the 100 Years War. In smaller princely states often it was a time for internal factions like minor nobles, peasants, or towns to demand more rights, seize territories, capture castles and so on to reinforce and retrench their own power, and for neighbors to attack. For princes this was an irresistible time to attack and try to take over, so irresistible as to seem wildly irrational sometimes. For example during the Ottoman invasions the Hapsburgs, Hunyadi / Corvinus family and other warlords often couldn't resist attacking each other during interregnums even when the Ottomans were nearby and on the march.

Quite often whole groups of rival claimants would arrive at some vacant or weak polity and fight each other even when much more dangerous foreign armies were threateningly near (think Battle of Five Armies)

Cities too would annex neighboring territories suffering from interregnum chaos, and sometimes new city-states or free peasant zones would arise when dynasties became weak or died off, as they often did.

This was one of the advantages for towns and Theocratic states, since they did not have primogeniture but were ruled by committees and their rulers were either elected or appointed by somebody, so you didn't have sons killing each other (or ravaging each others land) over trying to see who would rule the next generation.

Conversely the most successful noble families, like the Hapsburgs, were often those who simply had a lot of offspring and married well and strategically, rather than those who were great military leaders (which the Hapsburgs typically weren't) since having warm bodies to take up ruling positions was very valuable - they often inherited new lands and even whole Kingdoms that they hadn't been able to capture militarily for generations.

G

*sometimes linked together in large organizations like the Hanseatic League or the Confederation of the Rhine

[Galloglaich]

In early societies run by a warlord or chieftain or similar, war operates on the needs of the person in charge. People may say that they go to war for reasons like honor or glory or conquest (like the wars described in the Illiad), but there is increasing anthropological evidence that the only reason people will raid and kill other people is because of resources. The other guy has a thing you want, so you throw your men at him to get the thing, and then you have all the things until you find someone else who has a different thing you want. If someone is upset that you took said thing, or wants your thing, you go to war with him too, and if you can, take his things. With early tribal groups, the war is very much over distribution of food, hunting or agricultural territory, or even for the right to marry someone. With the level of society you're discussing, it also may be over controlling large sections of territory and the people within, such as dominating a city. Early warfare in such societies can be closely compared to gang warfare in more decrepit modern cities. Sure, they may decide to fight to teach the rival gang a lesson or 'show them who's boss', but more often than not, it is to secure some 'turf' or some resources they may have.

No, this is not a very secure way to run a society, but is was how it was done until one particular group got so powerful as to conquer all other groups in the local area. The so called "Great Generals" of early history were often these individuals with the intuition and luck to get enough territory to make it worth forming a government to protect it. (Any examples of this probably fall under 'real world politics' though, sorry for the lack thereof.) After there is a government to provide a decent amount of defense, then people can start to theorize and reorganize society and make society much less war reliant.

See, I actually don't quite agree with this - it depends greatly on the type of society. Warlords often fought simply for control quite to the detriment of economic imperatives, even to the point of causing famines and plagues. Societies with either large bureaucracies or some kind of democratic elements to their rulership fought for more 'rational' reasons like resources.

G

[Spiryt]

In 'proto state' situations tribal leaders/chieftains would quite simply fight other chieftains to subdue/eliminate them and control more land and people.

That's how state were being formed after all.

Poland as such likely emerged somewhere around 900 when some group of people led by what later became Piast dynasty managed to gain control over most of modern Great Poland - burn some old fortifications and built new, bigger.

[SiuiS]

@SiuiS: I really hate having to restate this every few pages but once again when it comes to things like acceleration/deceleration it is conservation of momentum that matter, not conservation of energy, (since CoM will always dictate a lower velocity than CoE). This is where the glove really effects things, extra mass is extra mass is extra momentum and unlike KE momentum only changes with the velocity, not the square of the velocity. As such if you get 10% more mass at the cost of 5% velocity, (hypothetical figure), you've got a net increase in momentum. Of course it's true velocity affect impact time and so force applied. But most forms of acceleration mechanism, including the human muscle has a fundamental velocity limit, if a non-gloved punch approaches that limit the acceleration of the arm over the whole blow may be poor in the later half.

This is true. It is my experience that there are two factors here, both the limit to velocity as you said, and the time to recruit muscle fibres for more energy. On average – a word carefully chosen to include more than the Mike Tysons of the world ;P – a normal punch reaches maximum velocity before the body reaches maximum ability to accelerate the punch. The potential for more acceleration is there, but it goes unused because it would not help and would be harmful. Learning not to over commit your weight and all that.

Adding a light glove increases the momentum if the gloves fist is at the same velocity as the wrapped fist. The question is, does the system allow for both to reach the same velocity, and my experience is "yes, because some of the remaining unused potential can go into accelerating the gloved fist that wouldn't go into the wrapped fist".

This is something that's come up with weapons actually, only no one could articulate why infinitely lighter weapons didn't lead to infinitely faster strokes. We all knew there was a limiter, but it was poorly explained beyond that thing we all sort of grasped. This is why theoretical strengths (in RPGs usually) benefit from heavier weapons, and why a 'perfect' weapon for any given scenario isn't the default once you get into fantasy levels of skill.



Thirdly the elbow is a joint, it will bend under sufficient force weather it's crooked or not, (and no useful punch has it uncrooked anyway), the muscles on it determine the maximum force transfer. All that stuff about crumple zones just doesn't apply here because their not a comparable items. A crumple zone is inflexible most of the time. An elbow is never inflexible.

It is my experience that the bend in a straight thrust is much less severe and requires less muscular "upkeep" that the bend in a hook. Even in the examples shown.
The examples shown are good though, because the hook used to hit the dood bare knuckle is different biomechanically from the hooks you can find by, say, doing a google 'how to throw a hook' search. This leads to me still believe the boxing hook is modified to account for it's weapon, but I am now rationalizing in the face of a lack of data.


No. Added mass increases the innertia of an object like the head. An object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by an outside force. A punch with a fixed amount of energy will acelerate a head with greater mass slower than a head with smaller mass. Or think of kicking a football and a bowling ball. One will be shoting away into the sky, the other merely roll a little bit.

Hmm. Dang, that made sense.



I believe it would have been as simple as setting up several forges next to each other and getting a dozen blacksmiths to work on the same site. They can get their iron ingots and charcoal directly from the supplier in bulk, and each workshop wouldn't have to compete on the open local market, since they either are employed directly by the government, or are on a permanent contract with it.

That assumed Roman swords, which I believe we were talking about here.
In medieval central Europe, such a large workshop with multiple weaponsmiths on the same site would still work if they are creating products with a quality high enough that even non-local warriors will pay extra to import one.

Ah, I assumed then. That makes sense.



Of course, which is why padding/gloves actually work great as far as preventing breaks, bruises, cuts and whatever else goes. Don't think anybody will dispute that. It 'disappears' from one specific point.

It cannot change the fact that all that energy still goes somewhere in the head/neck, and that's why it's being snapped back.

Indeed. A quibble on my part.



Of course bending will rob you out of the force, but you really would have to prove that joins bend significantly more during hooking than any other punch.

... *points to your videos of hooks*


Not to mention that human joints work best while slightly bent anyway, this is how humans perform 99% of stuff, rarely with straight arm...

I'm willing to count a violent full body thrust of a limb as that remaining 1% ;)



Not sure if I understand correctly, but hook can absolutely land the same way as jab. There's in no way one method to throw hooks.


The focus on Hooks is because they illustrate the point made about boxing. While a jab is identical, a cross is similar, an uppercut is the same, the hook is most drastically different bare knuckle and gloved. The focus was on the technique most changed at a mathematical level because the demonstration was 'gloves can change the mathematics of the fight enough that gloves boxing shouldn't be counted identical to bareknuckle anything'.

I'm Sorry if that got lost. I know I've been almost stupidly focused on this one thing, but like I said about dilution earlier, I have to get us all on the point here first, before we look at the rest of it.



In that late period, Romans did apparently have couple of large scale fabricae producing weapons

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03085/abstract

But it's still arguable how and if something like sword could be 'mass produced' because due to nature of their technology, each sword blade in particular would be somehow individual item, not very standardized.

Hmm hmm. I presumed melted iron into sword shaped molds and then refined a little, myself.



What I'm questioning is how a bit of padding can really change that time in meaningful manner.

Indeed. A breakdown on why it doesn't matter is better than dismissal though – I'm not a thread regular! I shouldn't be assumed to have the same basis of knowledge as all you guys.


Indeed, any punch thrown with just the arm or arm and shoulder is going to be much weaker than one thrown with the whole body. A punch starts on the ground, power is generated with your legs, transmitted through the hips into the upper body and from there into the arm via shoulder. You can throw a pretty powerful hook punch without moving your arm at all, locking it in position and throwing from your hips.

Aye. Having seen that more often lately, I'm begin if to suspect that easy access gyms just teach piss-poor boxing. A lot of it is contaminated by movies and street fights too.


In medieval central Europe such large workshops were the norm for any large scale iron based production, including for swords, armor, and iron parts for ships and buildings and horse tackle and so on, based on water mills. Swords were not usually made by some sweaty village blacksmith, but by highly organized guilds in towns, and by carefully organized workshops in abbeys and castles.

The heavier work was done in places like this (note the water-powered bellows, this is what they called a Catalan Forge):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_35v_H%C3%BCttenwerk.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_36r_H%C3%BCttentechnik.jpg

Then the finer work, for example sharpening, polishing, and assembling swords was done by subcontractors in workshops like these

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Balthasar_Behem_Codex01.jpg/522px-Balthasar_Behem_Codex01.jpg

http://www.nuernberger-hausbuecher.de/75-Amb-2-279-14-r/large

Swedish swordsmith and researcher Peter Johnsson has a good article here explaining the extremely sophisticated manner in which medieval swords were designed, here

http://www.peterjohnsson.com/higher-understanding-and-deeper-reckoning/

The sweaty village blacksmith basically makes horse-shoes and nails, though of course they could also make crude weapons in a pinch. But sword making was a highly organized activity in medieval times, and cutlers (sword makers) were well paid professionals working in complex organizations.

G

Fabulous! Why does no one ever being those up when discussing how rare and difficult to make swords are in RPGs? XD


Can anyone tell me about the goals and motives of warfare in "non-state societies". I am thinking of warlords who basically have their own private armies who they pay with their personal funds and who are loyalty to them in person instead of some kind of organization.

I believe at the most basic part, there is simply a need for private security to protect your property (land and animals) in the absence of a national police or military. Simply to guard against bandits. If your private force becomes to big to support it just from the income you make with your property, it seems to be the common practice to just send your warriors to attack and loot some other place and the spoils will be their payment.
But are there more complex reasons why wealthy local landowners go to war with each other with their private armies than just that?
Raiding your neighbours for the purpose of being able to protect yourself against being raided by your neighbours would be paradoxical. Once that circle has started it can obviously keep itself going for a very long time. But I don't believe that it is inherent human nature to start fights to prevent fights. It's a classic prisoners dilemma, but I don't think it's normal that people would preemtively strike at anyone who could conceivably become a threat at some point.
There must surely be additional factors that set such perpetual systems of raiding and counter-raiding into motion. My first guess would be economical. Does anyone know anything about that?

Natural disasters that lead to famine would be a good candidate. Basically the standard Zombie Apocalypse setup.

Well, culture, right? You're a wealthy jarl. You have fifteen men who are all probably your equal and who all probably think very now and then that your royal blood don't mean squat when it's soaking into dirt. So you keep them focused. You put them to task of focusing their boredom and itch against someone else to keep them off your back.

Not sure how universal that is though.

[Cealocanth]

See, I actually don't quite agree with this - it depends greatly on the type of society. Warlords often fought simply for control quite to the detriment of economic imperatives, even to the point of causing famines and plagues. Societies with either large bureaucracies or some kind of democratic elements to their rulership fought for more 'rational' reasons like resources.

G

This is a field where there is a lot of speculation involved, but I think we may be looking at two different types of society. You are absolutely correct on the grounds that a warlord's activities are often very detrimental to their society and usually inspired for the sole purpose of getting further glory to the warlord. Why their activities obtained that glory is for reason like resources or territorial control, and many of them probably were not actually aware that this is what they were doing. I find that this type of early warfare is often just a more complex form of the animal-like warfare that you see examples of in prehistoric groups, where a group will follow an 'alpha' character simply because it means that they are more likely to survive because he helps them obtain stuff like food, water, and shelter. They operate on the same concept, in essence. The alpha may be going to war simply because of a lust for glory and conquest, but the reason that worked is because it leads to the obtaining of stuff like resources. So you are quite correct in that respect. I was more trying to point out the more economic, or, if you will, evolutionary reasons for such warfare.

I can see where the conflict comes from, however. While I saw the phrase 'non-state societies' to indicate that the groups they are discussing are those pre-civilization groups which had yet to even develop into city-states, one could also see his post to indicate the so-called 'barbarian' groups that form on the outskirts of major civilizations during written history.

[Yora]

This might go deep into philosophy about human nature and society, but what is the incentive to "rule over all the people in the land"? A megalomaniac like Alexander always kept conquering because he thought it was devine destiny that this is what he would do his entire life. And while he achieved that (by dying on campaign), the whole thing fell apart immediately after.
But as a small monarch with your own private territory, why do you need all those distant places you've never been to or could ever visit? Or say there is a big civil war and after centuries of fighting there are only two leaders left who have the country split between them. Why not just stop fighting and be happy with what you got? I know one reason is that you can't simply disband an army once your war is over and send everyone home. Those soldiers need to make a living, and that living comes from raiding. But once you defeated your last rival, you will have the same problem, with twice as many unemployed soldiers to deal with.

Could this be a partial case of perception bias? A conqueror who united all the people makes for a good historic story. A conqueror who united half the people but never got any further than that can be immortalized in history as the founder of a new nation. And the king who peacefully kept his kingdom in one peace without invading or getting invaded doesn't get mentioned in history at all. Maybe rulers who thought they had to attempt to conquer large territories were actually just a minority, and those who had any actual success an even smaller one. But they get to be the guys who everyone is talking about for centuries to come.

My prime interest lies indeed with kinship groups, though. I would assume the main goal of a leader would be to keep your people fed and safe from attacks. While raiding other groups may help with the being fed part in the short term, I would assume it makes things more challenging in regard to being safe from attacks in the long run.
From what I am aware, there is no "conquest" in such environment either. Perhaps you might try to keep other groups from hunting close to your village because you want that food for yourself, but I think that would be it as far as territory is concerned.
Things get more complicated once individual groups start forming alliances, though.

[Galloglaich]

I can see where the conflict comes from, however. While I saw the phrase 'non-state societies' to indicate that the groups they are discussing are those pre-civilization groups which had yet to even develop into city-states, one could also see his post to indicate the so-called 'barbarian' groups that form on the outskirts of major civilizations during written history.

So there are 'rational' and 'irrational' reasons for war. Rational means you both need something and are fighting for control over it. Irrational means for example you just got stuck in a vendetta with no end and lasts generation after generation to your mutual destruction...


Barbarians warlords, with certain exceptions, tend to be a little more rational in that sense, because they often don't have absolute power but are limited in that they rely on the other armed men in their tribe or clan for support, and if they are too irrational for too long they will be deposed. Many clan based societies actually had sophisticated mechanisms for preventing dynastic systems from arising, for example Tanistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanistry) in the Gaelic countries.

Thus wars can be and are still terrible and horrific, in many cases, but they are somewhat rationally based, i.e. over resources. This in turn means that over time warfare can become somewhat ritualized and therefore less bloody. And eventually treaties and trade can arise which lead to increasing general prosperity. There are two ways to get to that, mutual trust, however tenuous, between similar entities, or total control by one entity (more on that in a minute)

The exception to the 'pragmatic barbarian' rule comes with certain big Nomad tribal confederations, particularly from the Steppes, like the Huns or the Mongols, who sometimes make a systematic policy of depopulating large territories, undoing improvements linked to settled culture (ala Genghiz Khan's policies of filling up wells and pulling down bridges and terracing and so on) and enslaving vast populations who they perceive essentially as livestock. This may still arguably be a 'rational' as opposed to irrational type of warfare (and some people argue that the Mongols like the Romans brought about peace and better organization) but given the level of destruction it's definitely questionable whether it's really worth it.


This might go deep into philosophy about human nature and society, but what is the incentive to "rule over all the people in the land"?

Yora I think this is because total absolute control is the logical outcome of minor squabbles for territorial control. The reality of warlords squabbling is that it's inherently unstable and can just go on and on (think Warring States period in China). When all you have is the warlord zero-sum game mentality, and in Alexanders time the once great City-States of Greece had been largely reduced to this mentality, then the only logical way to achieve peace is to conquer all rivals. Take over FIRST, THEN fix everything. That was the dream of Julius Caesar, Alexander, and just about every King of France.

In the medieval world, one of the odd things is that you kind of had players of the game who saw the entire ruleset completely differently. Most nobles didn't even acknowledge the right of communes like city states to exist, or their reasons for doing anything. The only thing that was real to them was the 'game of thrones'. Conversely the Church and the cities couldn't grasp why the gentry fought each other with scorched earth tactics which impoverished their own regions and why the Monarchs couldn't be trusted to keep to a deal.

The princes and gentry in turn can't grasp why the towns won't throw all their support behind total destruction of this or that enemy, and despise them for putting money over honor (as they see it). The princes and the towns alike can't grasp why the Church is so adamant about crushing pagans and heretics even when it disrupts more practical ends, or why the Church gives them so much grief for secular wars of conquest or wealth accumulation, respectively.

G

[Spiryt]

This might go deep into philosophy about human nature and society, but what is the incentive to "rule over all the people in the land"?


To have better life, simply.

More wealth, more safety, more luxuries, more women, and even better perspectives for your children continuous brave folk of Heruli/Arabs/Romans/whatever.



Could this be a partial case of perception bias? A conqueror who united all the people makes for a good historic story. A conqueror who united half the people but never got any further than that can be immortalized in history as the founder of a new nation. And the king who peacefully kept his kingdom in one peace without invading or getting invaded doesn't get mentioned in history at all. Maybe rulers who thought they had to attempt to conquer large territories were actually just a minority, and those who had any actual success an even smaller one. But they get to be the guys who everyone is talking about for centuries to come.

My prime interest lies indeed with kinship groups, though. I would assume the main goal of a leader would be to keep your people fed and safe from attacks. While raiding other groups may help with the being fed part in the short term, I would assume it makes things more challenging in regard to being safe from attacks in the long run.
From what I am aware, there is no "conquest" in such environment either. Perhaps you might try to keep other groups from hunting close to your village because you want that food for yourself, but I think that would be it as far as territory is concerned.
Things get more complicated once individual groups start forming alliances, though.

More wealth, more power, more everything. Why people do politics today? Same thing, only in different means.

Generally your question is terribly broad.

But I would say that, in first place, 'kings' in most meaning of the world is who had already made some conquest.

And is ruling over some bigger, less 'personal' structure, there's some, even simple administration etc. already.

Such structures would often form after one tribe/family would conquer/subdue others and form some kind of 'nobility'.

For more food, safety, wealth, slaves, etc.

Such social stratification can force people to build larger scale inventions (town, fortifications, etc.) form larger armies to fight more powerful tribes, etc.

Those at the top of this benefit greatly from it.

If those at the bottom do depends on way too many things.

[Spiryt]

Hmm hmm. I presumed melted iron into sword shaped molds and then refined a little, myself.

Noone ever was melting iron into sword molds....

Not only it is terribly hard to do without technology of ~18th century at very last, it also won't produce a non-terrible blade.

At least not without many different and complicated treatments, all of which are needless complications over forging/grinding/cutting blade into shape.

[JustSomeGuy]

No. Added mass increases the innertia of an object like the head. An object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by an outside force. A punch with a fixed amount of energy will acelerate a head with greater mass slower than a head with smaller mass. Or think of kicking a football and a bowling ball.

The issue isn't so much how hard it is for the punch to accelerate the motion, but the added strain of the neck trying ti decelerate it

[Tobtor]

Roman arms factories:

Now it has come up a couple of times. In all effect it was not just large workshops, but factories.

Major centralized workshops existed even before the romans, like well established mass produced pottery from Greece and the rest of the Aegean (with some division of task between individual workers). Also mints for making coins etc.

The Romans had a very developed system of these. They have been somewhat under researched in the past (were focus have been on temples and pottery/pictures), but that seems to be changing fast.

Remember the Romans organised armies (legions) to a size of around 6.000 men + auxiliary etc. And they had many such armies. This require major weapon facilities. Each legion had a workshop just for maintaining the weapons and armour of the troops (at least the major repairs).

Now, since it has been discussed I have looked for some more academic references (as well as a few more general references).

On Academia.edu I found this article about the mid-late imperial changes in the fabricae (factory) system.

Here is a quote
"In the ancient Rome, to start with Republic times, armour establishments worked mainly in cities both in the capital of the Imperium and in the most important urban centres. Romans took over the system of armaments productionfrom Greeks broaden out of new element, which was fabricae"

https://www.academia.edu/572898/The_state_factories_fabricae_during_the_time_of_te trarchy

They had workshops specialized in bows, others in arrows, some in swords, some in spears, others in balistaes, specialized saddle and horse equipment workshops, not to mention armor factories.


Another reference is from The Later Roman Empire (found on google books).
https://books.google.dk/books?id=gMoX8ZAsEigC&pg=PA839&lpg=PA839&dq=roman+arms+factories&source=bl&ots=FxjuYeJnCC&sig=io1LVIqrZ_xXeAPS4MQEt5CxXvY&hl=da&sa=X&ei=13mxVNKJOcX0OrPigJAB&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=roman%20arms%20factories&f=false

That large scale weapon production also happened earlier is clear from different lines of evidence, the stamps are just one. The factories had reputations and well established systems. This should not surprise anyone, since Rome just loved huge scale production and centralization .

There has been a discussion on the use of factories on the internet before (well not surprising), here is one:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/201537-roman-arms-factories.html?start=15

Especially worth noting is one post
"Scipio's master stroke was to seize the capital and supply base of the Barcids in Spain, Cartago(Cartagena) in 210 Bc after one of History's most famous forced marches ( see the 'Legionary feats of fitness thread'). With it came 120 catapults/Stone throwers of the largest sort, 281 smaller ones; 23 large,52 smaller balllistae; countless scorpions large and small; missiles and weapons of all sorts. There was also a considerable amount of treasure, and grain by the silo, 63 merchant vessels with their cargo......
More importantly, all the Spanish tribal Hostages to Carthage fell into his hands...... AND....
the vast Barcid Arsenal where weapons of all sorts were made, especially shields. The size of this can be gauged from the fact that the number of artisans came to 2,000 ( though not all of these may have worked in the arms industry), who as captives became public slaves of Rome, but to whom Scipio promised freedom at the end of the war, provided they worked well.......
(Polyb. X.17 ; Livy XXVI.48 )
Clearly, large Arsenals/factories had a history going back well before Late Roman times.... "

We are not talking of a few forges put next to each other, but large scale operations employing hundreds of people doing various tasks. 2.00 is likely to be high for most Roman factories, but from the sources and researchers I have seen/talked to, a system of at least a hundred artisans and then some similar number of workers in supporting task (maintenance etc) is not unreasonable.

As G and I previously discussed, the Romans took over earlier weapon production, and used their skilled workers as slaves (in this case offering freedom for a job well done). In the (early?) imperial period both slaves and free workers were employed at factories, but many seem to have had the status of the legionnaires, in regard to salary and honourable discharge.

[Yora]

So theBarbarians warlords, with certain exceptions, tend to be a little more rational in that sense, because they often don't have absolute power but are limited in that they rely on the other armed men in their tribe or clan for support, and if they are too irrational for too long they will be deposed. Many clan based societies actually had sophisticated mechanisms for preventing dynastic systems from arising, for example Tanistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanistry) in the Gaelic countries.

Thus wars can be and are still terrible and horrific, in many cases, but they are somewhat rationally based, i.e. over resources. This in turn means that over time warfare can become somewhat ritualized and therefore less bloody. And eventually treaties and trade can arise which lead to increasing general prosperity. There are two ways to get to that, mutual trust, however tenuous, between similar entities, or total control by one entity (more on that in a minute)
One thing that just occured to me is that in raid-warfare, you probably don't have the strategic objective to "break the enemies will to continue fighting". If all you want is to steal something and you are not particularly desperate to get it right now, I think attacking raiders would be much less inclined to risk their life against a strong enemy. At the same time, locals who are attacked might have less hesitation to "run for the hills", cut their losses, and let the raiders take what they can carry and leave.
In the end it's the same situation as a bear coming upon some wolves with a dead deer. There will be lots of threatening, some fighting, and perhaps some injury or even death. But usually one side will retreat instead of getting into a lethal fight. Wouldn't surprise me if raid warfare happened along similar lines. And I think several later warlords fared pretty well with sparing those who did not resist them.

[Spiryt]

Thus wars can be and are still terrible and horrific, in many cases, but they are somewhat rationally based, i.e. over resources. This in turn means that over time warfare can become somewhat ritualized and therefore less bloody. And eventually treaties and trade can arise which lead to increasing general prosperity. There are two ways to get to that, mutual trust, however tenuous, between similar entities, or total control by one entity (more on that in a minute)

The exception to the 'pragmatic barbarian' rule comes with certain big Nomad tribal confederations, particularly from the Steppes, like the Huns or the Mongols, who sometimes make a systematic policy of depopulating large territories, undoing improvements linked to settled culture (ala Genghiz Khan's policies of filling up wells and pulling down bridges and terracing and so on) and enslaving vast populations who they perceive essentially as livestock. This may still arguably be a 'rational' as opposed to irrational type of warfare (and some people argue that the Mongols like the Romans brought about peace and better organization) but given the level of destruction it's definitely questionable whether it's really worth it.

G

Hmm, were would we put that general boundary of this 'exception' though?

Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, etc. barbarians were also depopulating whole regions, slaying the men and enslaving/taking the women - and Mongols were also leaving lands be, if their rulers clearly expressed submission - gave hostages, paying tribute etc.

Especially when war had no settlement or control intent, but was purely for spoils or to eliminate enemies.



As G and I previously discussed, the Romans took over earlier weapon production, and used their skilled workers as slaves (in this case offering freedom for a job well done). In the (early?) imperial period both slaves and free workers were employed at factories, but many seem to have had the status of the legionnaires, in regard to salary and honourable discharge.

I would note that before ~3rd century AD, a lot (most?probably unanswerable, sadly) of equipment was also obtained on very small scale though, even produced by specialized legionnaires themselves.

Aside from smaller scale artisans.

http://www.academia.edu/2991987/The_military_fabrica_and_the_production_of_arms_in _the_early_principate

[Carl]

@Spiryt:

Another formula, really a development of that last.

t=S/(0.5*(u-v))

Where S is the flex distance, (that is the amount the hand, face, and if present glove can compress and bend to absorb the impact).

You can combine this with the previous formula to get:

(u^2-v^2)/2S=A

The glove drastically increases S, probably by an order of magnitude, and conservation of momentum dictates that for a gloved punch v will be higher too.

Basically you may not be able to see the difference but physics says there has to be one and that's it's probably a minimum of 1 order of magnitude, it's just that even the gloved value of t is so small that you'd need a high speed camera running at 10's of thousands of FPS to see it.

[Kiero]

Remember the Romans organised armies (legions) to a size of around 6.000 men + auxiliary etc. And they had many such armies. This require major weapon facilities. Each legion had a workshop just for maintaining the weapons and armour of the troops (at least the major repairs).


In the Principate/Imperial era the numbers might have been down to the whim of the Emperor, but in the Republic there weren't "many" armies, but a very specific number of them, attached to particular magisterial/promagisterial offices. A praetorian army comprised of one Roman legion and one ala of socii - all told about 10,000 men. A consular army was double that, two legions and two alae.

There were two consuls of the day, thus there would always be at least two consular armies in Italy. Furthermore, last year's consuls (now proconsuls) were entitled to a consular army in the province they governed, though they might not keep it up to full strength, so potentially another two. Under normal circumstances, you wouldn't have proconsols being extended for years at a time, necessitating the designation of new consular provinces, so we'll ignore that for this exercise. So that's 40,000 men in Italy and another 40,000 men in two parcels in the most significant provinces.

Any provinces with a propraetor as governor would have a praetorian army in them, though the number of provinces depended on when we're looking at the Republic, since it grew over time. Even so, we're looking at 10,000 men several times over.

Originally, a man was responsible for providing his own panoply, as qualification to serve. After Marius, the state equipped soldiers and thus would have needed to be able to draw upon - it was likely around this time that they took a more direct hand in production, though through the agents of prominent senators and men of the equestrian class.

[Spiryt]

t=S/(0.5*(u-v))

Where S is the flex distance, (that is the amount the hand, face, and if present glove can compress and bend to absorb the impact).

You can combine this with the previous formula to get:

(u^2-v^2)/2S=A

The glove drastically increases S, probably by an order of magnitude, and conservation of momentum dictates that for a gloved punch v will be higher too.

Basically you may not be able to see the difference but physics says there has to be one and that's it's probably a minimum of 1 order of magnitude, it's just that even the gloved value of t is so small that you'd need a high speed camera running at 10's of thousands of FPS to see it.

That's interesting formula, thanks.

But it doesn't really prove or explain much.

Because we don't actually know if S is 'significantly' affected by a glove, and as you have noted, values of u and v itself are indeed problematic enough.

So we can't really know if glove/headgear makes any decent difference.

You may very well be right too, we just don't have real data.

Gloves in any case sure as hell do not stop KO's at all.

Amateur boxing of all kinds requires headgears, and one could try statistics to gauge the amount of knockdowns/knockout compared to boxing without headgear.

Though it will be still sketchy at best, due to all other variables.

[snowblizz]

This might go deep into philosophy about human nature and society,

But as a small monarch with your own private territory, why do you need all those distant places you've never been to or could ever visit? Or say there is a big civil war and after centuries of fighting there are only two leaders left who have the country split between them. Why not just stop fighting and be happy with what you got?
You need them because they exist. Why do we humans want to over to the next hill and see what's there? Because we are hard-wired to. We are the descendants of the curious, the restless, those always seeking something new, the most violent, greedy bad-asses of millions of years of selective breeding. Someone once asked why humans get obese, why do we like the unhealthy stuff like fat and sugar so much, isn't that a really bad idea? Yes, today, but not for the times our bodies are made for.
Saw a documentary where one guy mentioned that they started posting CEO salaries with the idea they'd go down when you knew how much your "colleagues" made. Turns the opposite happened, now CEOs are only happy when they are paid well compared to what other CEOs get and you get the ridiculous amounts, bonuses etc etc etc of such compensations schemes. Human nature. Throw in a healthy does of survival instinct gone bad, greed, envy, fear etc etc etc. You may not need them, but someone else will come looking for you. And when they do, it's better if you already got more stuff than id they did. I'm a big fan of the line of thought where a lot of our behaviour is identifiable when watching Animal Planet.


Could this be a partial case of perception bias? A conqueror who united all the people makes for a good historic story. A conqueror who united half the people but never got any further than that can be immortalized in history as the founder of a new nation. And the king who peacefully kept his kingdom in one peace without invading or getting invaded doesn't get mentioned in history at all.
Not really I'd say. In those cases where there are written records they tend to mention everyone more or less, and I have a feeling there are some great "peace kings" mentioned. Not all "X the Great" were conquerors.
Although I'd agree there is some bias to mentioning of the "military deeds". Especially in retelling and certainly history studies and education, which we are slowly working out. What I mean is, take any given written history and clean out the "military kings" and you won't have huge blank sections, you'll still have the "non-military kings" there.


My prime interest lies indeed with kinship groups, though. I would assume the main goal of a leader would be to keep your people fed and safe from attacks. While raiding other groups may help with the being fed part in the short term, I would assume it makes things more challenging in regard to being safe from attacks in the long run.
From what I am aware, there is no "conquest" in such environment either. Perhaps you might try to keep other groups from hunting close to your village because you want that food for yourself, but I think that would be it as far as territory is concerned.
Things get more complicated once individual groups start forming alliances, though.
Well animals fight fiercely for territory, just as humans do. There is something fundamental to it. Again evolutionary pressures. The people who were content with what they had were killed a loooooong time ago. And that territory can be quite large. Especially for such as hunting.


If all you want is to steal something and you are not particularly desperate to get it right now, I think attacking raiders would be much less inclined to risk their life against a strong enemy.
I think that's pretty much the definition of why raid instead of conquer.:smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:



This was one of the advantages for towns and Theocratic states, since they did not have primogeniture but were ruled by committees and their rulers were either elected or appointed by somebody, so you didn't have sons killing each other (or ravaging each others land) over trying to see who would rule the next generation.
Although I have a feeling it wasn't always that smooth...



Many clan based societies actually had sophisticated mechanisms for preventing dynastic systems from arising, for example Tanistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanistry) in the Gaelic countries.

I was looking in the link and ran into an interesting thing:

[Malclom II] was the first to introduce the concept of hereditary monarchy in Scotland. He did so to try to eliminate the strife caused by the elective law, which encouraged rival claimants to fight for the Throne
So having an elective system is no guarantee to avoid dynastic strife. Hmm in fact treading further that seems to have been the result of Tansitry too.(*)
Besides, didn't the political infighting in the kinda elective Italian citystates lead to internal turmoil too? I'm thinking I've heard of council struggles turning violent.
Really isn't the question more that if everyone buys into the premise of the system it will be less chaotic.

(*)I may have been misunderstanding what you were getting at, but it sounded like you were saying "non-dynastic" would lead to warfare less?

[Galloglaich]

As G and I previously discussed, the Romans took over earlier weapon production, and used their skilled workers as slaves (in this case offering freedom for a job well done). In the (early?) imperial period both slaves and free workers were employed at factories, but many seem
to have had the status of the legionnaires, in regard to salary and honourable discharge.

To put it all into scale though, the Romans didn't have anything in terms of production as efficient or sophisticated (or on the same scale in terms of sheer output) as the medieval Venetian arsenal, which was truly like a modern factory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal

Much smaller medieval cities (of 20,000 or even 5,000 people and less) had extremely efficient and sophisticated waterpowered production complexes capable of equipping vast armies in very short periods of time with armor the Romans couldn't even imagine. Milan once (under rather severe duress) made armor for 16,000 troops in a matter of weeks.

G

[Galloglaich]

Although I have a feeling it wasn't always that smooth...

Well that depends. In Italy many of the city-States eventually had problems (more on that in a second), but very generally speaking, north of the Alps with the larger Central-European towns (almost all of them from the Rhine up to Sweden and well into Poland and Czech zones, were under German Town Law) were pretty stable compared to almost any Royal kingdom or princely domain I can think of. Though there were plenty of upheavals, riots, disturbances and so on over the centuries, most of them managed to keep things from getting out of hand, mainly out of fear of opportunistic outside forces which united all factions within the walls. They had temporary disturbances, uprisings, banished leaders, exiled factions and the occasional small bloodbath, but they all knew if things got too out of hand the town would permanently lose it's status. There are at least 200 major towns in Central Europe which managed to retain stable governments for more than a century, and a few dozen which were stable for four, five, even six centuries in some cases.

There were exceptions and failures of course, for example Mainz which was overrun and captured by their arch-bishop in 1462 as the result of a civil war which got totally out of hand (and got their archbishop involved). Bremen was also captured by their archbishop briefly before driving him out, also due to an internal dispute. But for the most part these cities managed to avoid "interregnums" and were relatively stable for a very long time, as internal factions would back down and form compromises called 'Rezess' in order to avoid the fate of places like Mainz. Now that is a different thing from saying that it was great living there (a separate discussion which I may take up with Spyrit when I have some time) nor is it the same as saying the cities were peaceful, since they weren't. But they were stable, in many cases stable enough** to even avoid the bitter, dangerous religious strife which destroyed so much of Northern Europe leading up to and during the apocalyptic 30 Years War.

The Prince-prelates (Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Abbesses etc.) also generally tended to be more stable than the princes though they could fall into the disputes among the noble families (since many of them were members of the same families). But their sons, if they had any, were banned by law from inheriting their domain (at least in theory) and this took a lot of the air out of the interregnum disputes (though there still were some). Like the towns, the prelates were not peaceful and did tend to wage war, sometimes for very selfish reasons, but they didn't go through those constant generational disruptions.

But highly centralized monarchies suffered badly, and often had incompetent or even dangerous rulers.

To cite one example, look at the first 12 Caeasars of the Roman Empire.

Julius Caesar - arguably a good leader but his reign was brief
Augustus Caesar - a very good leader with a long reign
Tiberius - a bad leader with a long reign
Caligula - a very bad leader
Claudius - mediocre to bad
Nero - very bad
Galba - bad and very short reign of a few months
Otho - bad and very short reign of a few months
Vitellius - bad and very short reign of a few months
Vespasian - good
Titus - good
Domitian - bad

So of 12 Caeasars, counting Julius 4 were (or would have been) arguably good / effective leaders, 7 were clearly bad to very bad leaders, and 1 mediocre to bad. Yet all had absolute power during their reign. 6 of them Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Vitellius died of assassinations, (also Otho committed suicide after losing battle to Vitellius, while some say Titus too was poisoned by Domitian) and 5 of them (Caeasar, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian) were involved in destructive civil wars. All this in the course of 100 years, in what is considered one of the most stable periods of the Empire.

By comparison the city of Hamburg managed to be ruled by the same city council system from 1241 until Napoleon invaded in 1806, or 565 years. Their biggest political disruption during that time occurred in 1410 when they had what is called 'The First Rezeß (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamburg#First_constitution)'. After Napoleon was defeated Hamburg resumed it's previous form of government (an oligarchy of rich merchants, by that time) actually continued to be a Free City (very nominally) right up to WW II when Hitler took away their last freedoms (in 1934).

Venice was a Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_Venice) from at least as early as 841 until 1796, though you could say that the period of stability and prosperity lasted from the 12th Century through the early 18th, a period of roughly 700 years. There were of course some disruptions in all that time but Venice was remarkably stable for most of it, and never fought a major internal civil war that I know of, let alone the rule of someone like Caligula or Nero. Not all of the Doge's were good rulers but their power was checked by the council of 10 and the larger councils.

These city States, Hamburg and Venice, are particularly long-lived examples of polities which were stable, pragmatic and capable of pursuing their own self interests. Not paradises by any means, not (except for relatively brief periods) truly democratic in any meaningful way, certainly not peaceful, or nice ... but not reckless or suicidal either.

On a pure stability level you can also see this kind of thing with tribal confederations. During the battles between Greeks and Galatian Gauls in what is now Turkey, (later leading up to the Greek victory which gave us the famous 'Dying Gaul' statue), in one incident a Greek 'tyrant' had 18 chieftains (tetrarchs) of the 3 major Celtic tribal confederations of Galatia (Trocmi, Tolistobogi and Tectosages) assassinated at a feast he invited to, planning to then take advantage of the resulting interregnum. But the three Celtic tribes simply elected new leaders and were able to fend off the attack. This is a far cry from saying anything nice or fluffy about their social structure (of which I really have no idea), but it's an example of how elections can prevent interregnums among tribal cultures.



I was looking in the link and ran into an interesting thing:


So having an elective system is no guarantee to avoid dynastic strife. Hmm in fact treading further that seems to have been the result of Tansitry too.(*)

Tanistry didn't prevent strife between clans or families, but it helped prevent a dynasty from forming, because the system required basically that the clans take turns in leadership. An informal version of this is how the major families of the Holy Roman Empire (Luxemburg, Hohenzollern, Hapsburg etc.) shared the Imperial throne.



Besides, didn't the political infighting in the kinda elective Italian citystates lead to internal turmoil too? I'm thinking I've heard of council struggles turning violent.

They did, but that was due to two specific things which weren't an issue in the North. They had the culture of the vendetta, which was inflamed by the Guelph -Ghibelline disputes that arose over power struggles between Pope and Emperor (and took on a life of their own) and they hired mercenaries to defend their own town walls. Northern cities used mercenaries a lot - for foreign wars. But they made their own citizens protect their own walls and police their streets. This presented many special problems and made life difficult for their leaders, but it kept the towns in the hands of their own citizens. In many of the Italian city-states, eventually they hired professional Condottieri to handle these duties, and in many cases the Condottieri took over and became Signore, new military rulers, essentially princes.



Really isn't the question more that if everyone buys into the premise of the system it will be less chaotic.

I disagree. Not every kingdom was unstable or corrupt (at least, not all the time) and not every republic was stable by any means, (the majority never lasted more than a few weeks) but you can observe the pattern that polities ruled by committee, if they do reach a point of initial stability, tend to remain stable for a long time and don't suffer interregnums because different members of the ruling stratum change gradually continuously; whereas absolute monarchies based on primogeniture have to deal with what the historian Dan Carlin calls "the roll of the genetic dice" with every new generation, and every dictatorship or monarchy with real power has to contend with potential interregnum's when the last leader dies. I think the system really does make a difference, in aggregate.


I may have been misunderstanding what you were getting at, but it sounded like you were saying "non-dynastic" would lead to warfare less?

No, I was saying they were more stable and more capable of acting in their own interests which is not the same thing. In my original post on this, I pointed out that all 8 types of medieval polities tended to wage wars for different reasons, but the petty nobles were the most violent. I think the larger monarchies could spend much more time fighting what seem to an outsider to be irrational wars. Was there a really valid reason (from the point of view of their subjects) for England and France to fight the 100 Years War? or for England to fight the War of the Roses?

The same argument is made sometimes about World War I. When they discuss things like the famous Christmas Truce which we passed an anniversary for, it opens up this discussion of what were all those poor men fighting each other for. Was it in their benefit to shell and shoot each other for four years and die in the tens of thousands? Maybe there was some rational reasons for the States involved to get into these wars, but maybe it's also happened because so many of those States were controlled by so few people.

G


** with certain lurid exceptions like Munster

[Yora]

By comparison the city of Hamburg managed to be ruled by the same city council system from 1241 until Napoleon invaded in 1806, or 565 years. Their biggest political disruption during that time occurred in 1410 when they had what is called 'The First Rezeß (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamburg#First_constitution)'. After Napoleon was defeated Hamburg resumed it's previous form of government (an oligarchy of rich merchants, by that time) actually continued to be a Free City (very nominally) right up to WW II when Hitler took away their last freedoms (in 1934).
Hamburg is now a federal state completely equal to the other 15 (and not even the smallest in population by a long shot), so its official name is now again "Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg". The city council is now the state parliament (though under a different constitution, obviously).

[Tobtor]

I would note that before ~3rd century AD, a lot (most?probably unanswerable, sadly) of equipment was also obtained on very small scale though, even produced by specialized legionnaires themselves.

Aside from smaller scale artisans.

http://www.academia.edu/2991987/The_military_fabrica_and_the_production_of_arms_in _the_early_principate

That is partly true. However, "very small scale" is not accurate of what the article describes. It describes the situation were a legion has a special officer in charge of production, it describes some finds of large scale buildings which could be factaes and compares them to industrial villages, it describes how the physical labour was done by legionares, but also suggest that a series of people was directly employed in the factae (under the officer) including administrators and specialists, and that this number could be around 60, and that with the legionaries asigned to tasks around 200-300 people worked at the factae on a given day (two historic documents). He also describe likely rutine, which involves seperation of tasks between unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled labour. This is not, to me at least, "very small scale".

If you read the article in detail, it states that this was the mode of operation in the frontier parts (mainly Gaul and Britany), while in the former "city states area" of the east and in the Mediterranean world city-based production was used. It also state that most "new" legions was recruited in these areas, due to the speed which the production of weapons could be done here, compared to the frontier production to the north and west.

There is some scholarly discussion of the scale of production compared to repair at the legion based factaes/workshops, and it likely varied between regions and periods. The article however does not state that the legion based factaes did most of the production, but that it could resupply the legion continuously.

Thus in the period 1st-3rd century large scale production seemed to have be separated in two: city-based and legion-based (and the legion headquaters/winter quaters in the north and west did develop into city like entities, which later became cities, such as Cologne and York etc.
In either case it was large scale with hundreds of people attached (as I stated in my previous post).


Kiero: The reason I said "many", is that I covered a large portion of time. What you describe is details, but still to me constitute "many" large armies. If you have 8 armies of 10.000+soldiers and another "10,000 men several times over", that is "many" in my understanding of how many armies you have, and the number of armies (legions) in the early empire is also "many". If the number is fixed at any given time (8, 9, 10 or more) does not matter, it is still "many armies" in a sense.

However, I do agree that the Marius reforms changed the way of production into more standardized sets.

G: "To put it all into scale though, the Romans didn't have anything in terms of production as efficient or sophisticated (or on the same scale in terms of sheer output) as the medieval Venetian arsenal, which was truly like a modern factory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal

Much smaller medieval cities (of 20,000 or even 5,000 people and less) had extremely efficient and sophisticated waterpowered production complexes capable of equipping vast armies in very short periods of time with armor the Romans couldn't even imagine. Milan once (under rather severe duress) made armor for 16,000 troops in a matter of weeks."

I do not want to restart that discussion as such, but I do agree that some city states (such as Venice) did have a more advanced production system, I think you generalize too much and to some degree underestimate the Roman capabilities. They also sometimes needed to equip large armies in a short time-frame and managed it. But yes Venetian (and several other city states, especially in northern Italy but also elsewhere) did have amazing sophisticated systems and surpassed the Romans, but I do not think it is by as much as you.

However, it is large scale production, involving specialist and separation of work-tasks etc, and was likely the most intensive and advanced production until the high/late medieval times. It had the advance of having both city based production, and large scale "field" and border production that enabled the (relative) stability of the Empire.

[Galloglaich]

But yes Venetian (and several other city states, especially in northern Italy but also elsewhere) did have amazing sophisticated systems and surpassed the Romans, but I do not think it is by as much as you.

Read that wiki on the Venetian Arsenal, it's admittedly an outlier even for medieval times, but the production capacity, scale and sophistication are I think well beyond anything the Romans ever achieved. They could build a ship per day. It's almost like something from the 19th Century. And Venice, as powerful as it was, was nowhere near the size of the Roman Empire.



However, it is large scale production, involving specialist and separation of work-tasks etc, and was likely the most intensive and advanced production until the high/late medieval times. It had the advance of having both city based production, and large scale "field" and border production that enabled the (relative) stability of the Empire.

The Romans clearly could produce on a large scale, they equipped many legions very well with good quality (if somewhat simple) armor and weapons. And it's also clear that they had some good artisans, especially in places that they had captured, who were only nominally slaves and were given good conditions so that they could keep producing good things. How long this actually lasted once the Romans took over (did the goose keep laying the golden eggs or did they eventually just strangle and eat it) remains a question to me.

However I think the medieval system* with the autonomous guilds was (counter-intuitively) more dynamic, innovative, and ultimately much better than even the best Roman production complex based on formerly free artisans. To cite one example, the Ottomans who used a similar slave-based system as the Romans, observed the guild system in action in Europe and decided to copy it, autonomy and all, in the 16th Century, despite the major challenges this created within their political structure, because they understood it was the best way to get the kind of quality and creative improvements to their kit that they needed to keep up with their military rivals, and to enhance the lifestyle of their society to glorify the Sublime Porte even further.


By the way, on another note, that Illerup bog find book I ordered arrived and it's really amazing. Some of the kit those guys were carrying is simply fantastic, what a lovely view into another world.

I saw a Danish movie once about a Copenhagen cop who gets sent to a remote village in Jutland after getting in trouble on the job, and what happens there subsequently with the peasants and a certain bog. It was quite interesting.

G


* not that the free guild system I'm describing existed everywhere, it competed within Europe with slave or serf based systems, which in Germany were called verlag.

[Yora]

There just came to me a thought:

Could it be that the praise of glorious death in battle correlates with overpopulation in areas with poor agricultural yield?
The best examples of warriors who glorify death in battle would have been Vikings, Mongols, and Japanese. All come from areas not well suited for farming. The vikings went raiding because they were poor and it's theorized that most invasions from the Eurasian steppe started by overgrazing. And at least in the late 19th and 20th century, Japan went so far as occupying whole countries for food production. And the famous image of the wandering ronin is a great indicator of a society that has much more soldiers than it has use for.
All these societies would actually benefit if a good bunch of young men were to die in battle.

[Roxxy]

I'm wondering about what circumstances make long hair a hygiene concern in the military. This comes up because I'm working on a culture where short hair on men is considered unprofessional and, to a degree, crude. It's mostly associated with rebellious youths and thugs. A "decent man" wears hair that falls at least to his neckline and keeps it well groomed. The military does not want the associations that come with overly short hair, so it would dictate that soldiers wear it longer and properly groomed, though working around heavy equipment and the like requires tying it back for safety. There are some instances where it becomes a hygiene concern, though. I imagine troops in those circumstances would cut their hair to prevent the spread of lice and what not, but only those troops. I know trench warfare is one circumstance, but what are any others?

[Brother Oni]

I know trench warfare is one circumstance, but what are any others?

Any situation where you have people living and working in close proximity with each other gives the chance for headlice, not just the bigger body lice, to spread - just take a look at the number of headlice incidents in schools.

You've mentioned the cultural aspects of having long hair and this was a means of identification during the English Civil War where the Royalists tended to have their hair long (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1600%E2%80%9350_in_Western_European_fashion#Hairst yles_and_Headgear)), while the Parliamentarians tended to be from more common folk (or were Puritans) and thus had their hair shorter (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundhead)).

Other situations where long hair may be detrimental would probably be linked to where it could get physically caught (you've mentioned heavy industry) or be a fire hazard (anything that involves lots of naked flames), but tying it back and covering it up would typically be sufficient.

[SiuiS]

Yora, what about reaving culture? Stealing someone's livestock was how you entered adult society and stayed there. And of course if your boys do something to anger the other clan, you back them up. Posturing, then?


There just came to me a thought:

Could it be that the praise of glorious death in battle correlates with overpopulation in areas with poor agricultural yield?
The best examples of warriors who glorify death in battle would have been Vikings, Mongols, and Japanese. All come from areas not well suited for farming. The vikings went raiding because they were poor and it's theorized that most invasions from the Eurasian steppe started by overgrazing. And at least in the late 19th and 20th century, Japan went so far as occupying whole countries for food production. And the famous image of the wandering ronin is a great indicator of a society that has much more soldiers than it has use for.
All these societies would actually benefit if a good bunch of young men were to die in battle.

Double check your background info. A lot of the glorious death in battle stuff came much later on Japanese history, enough that it may have been a rewrite to keep the upper classes in line once they become more aristocrat that soldier, I am told.


Noone ever was melting iron into sword molds....

Not only it is terribly hard to do without technology of ~18th century at very last, it also won't produce a non-terrible blade.

At least not without many different and complicated treatments, all of which are needless complications over forging/grinding/cutting blade into shape.

Exactly. So when I thought factory and assumed it was a fallacy, it was because of my terrible understanding of factory production, not because they didn't exist.


I'm wondering about what circumstances make long hair a hygiene concern in the military.

Helmets. Unlike modern media stuff, helmets were important because the head is such an obvious target and shields only help so much – if the shield covers your head you can't see. Even basic weapon training teaches to use that to advantage with fakes, feints and misleading strikes.

Long hair presents the issues of overheating, distraction (without helmet), and lice. Every long haired warrior-type culture I know of had very strict hair binding, bald pates, or both. Braids keep hair mostly out of line of fire and out of your face, and keep the mass on top of your head lighter for better ventilation. Topknots, braids, baldness, are the only longhair stuff I can think of that seems to have worked.

[Kiero]

Talking of helmets and hair, I believe ancient Greek warriors often used their hair (braided/plaited and arranged appropriately) as padding for their helmet. Spartans in particular.

But yes, in general even aside from hygiene concerns, hair long enough to grab is providing an enemy with a potential hand-hold, which is not good.

[Thiel]

Aside from hygiene it's also used as a psychological tool to seperate concsripts from their civillian selves and make them part of a unit. Apparently fake mustaches and haut extensions have also been used in the past.

[Brother Oni]

And the famous image of the wandering ronin is a great indicator of a society that has much more soldiers than it has use for.

Further to Sius' comment regarding the romanticisation of Bushido, there's the cultural aspect that a samurai was supposed to serve his lord until death (and into it, at least until junshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junshi) was outlawed due to the significant power shifts it caused and the general waste of manpower).

Since such dispossessed samurai were both unreliable (they've already failed one lord) and potentially vengeful (the 47 Ronin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_ronin) are a great example of this), they're unlikely to be recruited by existing families, leaving them no option but to turn to banditry or mercenary work since as samurai, they can't become farmers due to the strict caste laws, depending on the period in question (ie basically before the reforms that caused the disappearance of the whole farmer/warrior ji-samurai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji-samurai) class).

Edit: Some checking of army numbers also leads me to suspect that the lack of food production reasoning is also flawed - the Battle of Sekigahara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sekigahara), which was pretty much THE battle that indicated Tokugawa would unify Japan, had troop numbers of around 80 thousand on each side. In comparison, battles of the English Civil War a few decades later only had 10-25 thousand men on each side.

[Yora]

Yora, what about reaving culture? Stealing someone's livestock was how you entered adult society and stayed there. And of course if your boys do something to anger the other clan, you back them up. Posturing, then?
Hm... There might be indeed a flaw in my logic. I was assuming that raiders need to make it safely back home, as they are needed to defend the village against other raiders and supply the community with resources. And because of this raiding warfare would have more emphasis on staying alive.
But of course the vikings were raiders and they can't be exemplary for two opposing cases.

Double check your background info. A lot of the glorious death in battle stuff came much later on Japanese history, enough that it may have been a rewrite to keep the upper classes in line once they become more aristocrat that soldier, I am told.
I was thinking of the late 1500s and early 1600s in particular.

[Spiryt]

There just came to me a thought:

Could it be that the praise of glorious death in battle correlates with overpopulation in areas with poor agricultural yield?
The best examples of warriors who glorify death in battle would have been Vikings, Mongols, and Japanese. All come from areas not well suited for farming. The vikings went raiding because they were poor and it's theorized that most invasions from the Eurasian steppe started by overgrazing. And at least in the late 19th and 20th century, Japan went so far as occupying whole countries for food production. And the famous image of the wandering ronin is a great indicator of a society that has much more soldiers than it has use for.
All these societies would actually benefit if a good bunch of young men were to die in battle.

There's certainly something into it, but that's very complex issue.

Generally, I believe that 'Vikings' and Japanese 'glorifying death' is simply most widely known.

There wouldn't be much difference between Norse and all other migrating Germanic and other tribes, in times that were as violent as antique and early medieval.

Life was hard, famine, illness, death, enslavement etc. were threads, so culture of those people had to be pretty ruthless cooperation with tribe, within rather strict 'ethos'.

I would really say that 'glorifying death' would really be mostly attempt to overcome fear - the goal was to win - take spoils, slaves, or move past those pesky Romans into lands that are so much warmer and richer.

The less people have to lose and more to win the more energetic and fearless they seem.

[Zizka]

The same argument is made sometimes about World War I. When they discuss things like the famous Christmas Truce which we passed an anniversary for, it opens up this discussion of what were all those poor men fighting each other for. Was it in their benefit to shell and shoot each other for four years and die in the tens of thousands? Maybe there was some rational reasons for the States involved to get into these wars, but maybe it's also happened because so many of those States were controlled by so few people.

The problem with the Christmas Truce is that very few soldiers observed it in 1914 and that it was never repeated in later years (plus it was much less popular on the Eastern Front, where both sides observed different dates for Christmas). The war was genuinely popular or at least supported by most soldiers. This was reflected in politics too, whether with the creation of the French Sacred Union or with the German SDP (which was part of the 2nd International) voting for the war. Interestingly it was those countries with inclusive political coalitions - like Britain and France - which survived, whilst the authoritarian rule of the Tsar or the Ludendorff/Hinderburg quasi-dictatorship crumbled with political revolutions in 1917 and 1918. Although it's hard for us, a century on, to see what benefits winning the war had, it's easy to see that it was still better than the consequences of losing it: a century of Bolshevik horror for Russia; the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after centuries of rule; the dissolution and conquest by foreign powers of much of the Ottoman Empire; and Germany left broke, starving and humiliated.

[Galloglaich]

The problem with the Christmas Truce is that very few soldiers observed it in 1914 and that it was never repeated in later years (plus it was much less popular on the Eastern Front, where both sides observed different dates for Christmas). The war was genuinely popular or at least supported by most soldiers. This was reflected in politics too, whether with the creation of the French Sacred Union or with the German SDP (which was part of the 2nd International) voting for the war. Interestingly it was those countries with inclusive political coalitions - like Britain and France - which survived, whilst the authoritarian rule of the Tsar or the Ludendorff/Hinderburg quasi-dictatorship crumbled with political revolutions in 1917 and 1918. Although it's hard for us, a century on, to see what benefits winning the war had, it's easy to see that it was still better than the consequences of losing it: a century of Bolshevik horror for Russia; the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after centuries of rule; the dissolution and conquest by foreign powers of much of the Ottoman Empire; and Germany left broke, starving and humiliated.

It's true the more authoritarian regimes proved more brittle, but IIRC Germany and Russia weren't the only countries that had problems, France had major mutinies in 1917 and almost collapsed, as you can see depicted in the excellent war film 'Paths of glory'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutinies

I did read an article about the specific ways in which the English and German armies forced an end to the famous Christmas truce and it's a pretty sad story (basically they forced bloody betrayals against the other side to destroy the trust that had been built up).

And it's been a while since I've looked into this, but my understanding is that the famous Christmas Truce was just one among many local truces which took place in WW I (including on the Eastern Front) and even during WW II as well. Some in North Africa in WW II also involved soccer games. They also happened (under slightly different circumstances) in Vietnam, though it was more one sided (US troops simply refusing to fight and putting bounties on officers (http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html#2) who tried to make them) in the 1970's. That is the real reason the Vietnam War actually ended, not Jane Fonda or the Hippies.

By definition these events like the Christmas Truce were always local truces, not endorsed by the Generals. What made the Christmas Truce so unusual was that it had spread so wide (so dangerously wide, from the point of view of English and German high commands). What would typically happen is that enough of the officers above a certain critical percentage would be killed in the front-line area of the battlefield (which the highest-ranking and most 'aggressive' officers tended to stay well clear of); if the troops had low enough morale they would simply stop fighting from that point. It was also common for what you might call 'work slowdowns' to appear - troops would make mutual arrangements with the enemy to fire so many shells every day at a certain agreed upon time so as not to cause casualties or say, interrupt dinner. But by expending their ammunition they would not draw suspicion from higher ups.

Perhaps the most bizarre and interesting local truce I've ever read about on the WW I Russian front was this one to fight off wolves:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58022336

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E0DE3DD103BE03ABC4151DFB166838C609EDE

Maybe it really was a massive wolf attack or it was just a cover for another local truce?

G

[Zizka]

It's true the more authoritarian regimes proved more brittle, but IIRC Germany and Russia weren't the only countries that had problems, France had major mutinies in 1917 and almost collapsed, as you can see depicted in the excellent war film 'Paths of glory'

The French Army mutinies are still quite controversial. Although the troops refused to obey orders to attack (understandable after the debacle that was the Nivelle Offensives) in most cases they continued to obey low level orders and maintained their positions. Personally I see it as more akin to industrial action - similar also to the organised mutinies of the tercios - with the troops holding out for better conditions rather than pressing for a revolution. L.V. Smith has recently written a study called "Between Mutiny and Obedience: The Case of the French Fifth Infantry Division During World War I" which I haven't had the chance to read yet but which should provide more information.

There was also a British Army mutiny at Etaples, which is similarly over-inflated in much of the popular historiography, as well as the raising of the red flag in Glasgow in 1918. All the major nations involved got very close to total collapse (apart from America, which hadn't been in the war long enough).


By definition these events like the Christmas Truce were always local truces, not endorsed by the Generals. What made the Christmas Truce so unusual was that it had spread so wide (so dangerously wide, from the point of view of English and German high commands). What would typically happen is that enough of the officers above a certain critical percentage would be killed in the front-line area of the battlefield (which the highest-ranking and most 'aggressive' officers tended to stay well clear of); if the troops had low enough morale they would simply stop fighting from that point. It was also common for what you might call 'work slowdowns' to appear - troops would make mutual arrangements with the enemy to fire so many shells every day at a certain agreed upon time so as not to cause casualties or say, interrupt dinner. But by expending their ammunition they would not draw suspicion from higher ups.

The book to read is Tony Ashworth's "Trench Warfare 1914-18: The Live and Let Live System" which details how it all worked. It has to be said though that there wasn't some base level of friendliness to which troops would return when officers weren't around. The 'system' was complex and changed over the years. Part of that was higher ups using trench raids, discipline and planned bombardment to maintain hosilities between the two sides. Another part involved the troops themselves becoming more hardened through the death of friends, the professionalisation of peace-time armies and identification with the national struggle. It also depended on who was involved: as an invaded nation French troops were less likely to have truces, whilst British regiments tended to be friendlier (for example) to Saxons than to Prussians.

These sort of things tend to happen on stagnant battlefields. After all, even during the 1565 Siege of Malta - one of the most bitter, ideological battles in history - there was a brief truce between the Turks and Christians (who were fighting in rain-sodden trenches...).

[Galloglaich]

The French Army mutinies are still quite controversial. Although the troops refused to obey orders to attack (understandable after the debacle that was the Nivelle Offensives) in most cases they continued to obey low level orders and maintained their positions. Personally I see it as more akin to industrial action - similar also to the organised mutinies of the tercios - with the troops holding out for better conditions rather than pressing for a revolution. L.V. Smith has recently written a study called "Between Mutiny and Obedience: The Case of the French Fifth Infantry Division During World War I" which I haven't had the chance to read yet but which should provide more information.

There was also a British Army mutiny at Etaples, which is similarly over-inflated in much of the popular historiography, as well as the raising of the red flag in Glasgow in 1918. All the major nations involved got very close to total collapse (apart from America, which hadn't been in the war long enough).



The book to read is Tony Ashworth's "Trench Warfare 1914-18: The Live and Let Live System" which details how it all worked. It has to be said though that there wasn't some base level of friendliness to which troops would return when officers weren't around. The 'system' was complex and changed over the years. Part of that was higher ups using trench raids, discipline and planned bombardment to maintain hosilities between the two sides. Another part involved the troops themselves becoming more hardened through the death of friends, the professionalisation of peace-time armies and identification with the national struggle. It also depended on who was involved: as an invaded nation French troops were less likely to have truces, whilst British regiments tended to be friendlier (for example) to Saxons than to Prussians.

These sort of things tend to happen on stagnant battlefields. After all, even during the 1565 Siege of Malta - one of the most bitter, ideological battles in history - there was a brief truce between the Turks and Christians (who were fighting in rain-sodden trenches...).

I agree it wasn't based on any innate 'friendliness', but simply very pragmatic self preservation, based on the early observation made by troops that less aggressive action (patrols etc.) led to less deaths in certain cases. Sometimes even when this was dangerous (like in Vietnam firebases, where refusal to patrol the perimeter by the troops led to their own deaths when Viet Cong would move up artillery observers, mortars and rocket positions close to their walls). But the next level leading to the 'Live and Let Live' system was some kind of communication which typically already existed since even when the army was fully functional: troops would often have temporary truces to collect dead bodies from no-mans land for example. There is a whole set of game theory which studies how this works, but I think it's basically pretty instinctual.

And as you noted, the way it was fought by the higher echelons was by systematically forcing their troops to violate the trust that had been built up.

And I also agree that a baseline of support for the cause, patriotism and so on existed, otherwise the armies would have collapsed entirely. Nevertheless those armies like all modern armies were designed to fight on the basis of coercion of the rank and file, not inherent motivation and high morale, and I think you are overestimating the power of high morale in the early days of the war in light of years of obvious incompetence by the leadership, ongoing terrible conditions, very high casualty rates both from direct combat and disease etc., and a growing understanding of the shared commonalities between the regular troops on both sides, in comparison with the officer class (which was much more sharply divided during WW I than in later wars very generally speaking) in what were essentially conscript armies for the most part. Obviously fomenting actual revolution was a much more daunting task way beyond the capabilities or agendas of the average soldier which wasn't considered worth the effort since what the troops actually wanted to do was simply survive the war. But "Live and Let Live" systems, local truces, combat refusals, and massive desertion was common in WW I and broke out to epidemic levels on several occasions. Keeping the war going proved to be quite difficult especially toward the end.

The desertion rates in WW II were also incredibly high including on the Allied side, it's something not talked about very much in modern retelling, since it doesn't fit the tropes, but it was a major problem during the war. The Russians dealt with this by using pistol armed commissars standing behind almost every platoon to shoot hesitating soldiers, the Germans augmented their normal, already very strict military discipline with the use of punishment battalions etc.

G

[Galloglaich]

Further to Sius' comment regarding the romanticisation of Bushido, there's the cultural aspect that a samurai was supposed to serve his lord until death (and into it, at least until junshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junshi) was outlawed due to the significant power shifts it caused and the general waste of manpower).

Since such dispossessed samurai were both unreliable (they've already failed one lord) and potentially vengeful (the 47 Ronin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_ronin) are a great example of this), they're unlikely to be recruited by existing families, leaving them no option but to turn to banditry or mercenary work since as samurai, they can't become farmers due to the strict caste laws, depending on the period in question (ie basically before the reforms that caused the disappearance of the whole farmer/warrior ji-samurai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji-samurai) class).

Edit: Some checking of army numbers also leads me to suspect that the lack of food production reasoning is also flawed - the Battle of Sekigahara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sekigahara), which was pretty much THE battle that indicated Tokugawa would unify Japan, had troop numbers of around 80 thousand on each side. In comparison, battles of the English Civil War a few decades later only had 10-25 thousand men on each side.

One of the little known stories of the Southeast Pacific, and one which really needs to be told to a wider audience, is how the Dutch East India Company used thousands of Ronin Samurai as muscle during their conquest of Indonesia and Malaysia. They are mentioned in this wiki of an incident between the Dutch and the English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amboyna_massacre

but I can find very little about them in English. I wonder if anyone here can do a Dutch Language google-search?

This book (compiled of letters from English sailors in the Southeast Pacific in the 16th and 17th Centuries) mentions it a bit but doesn't get into much detail

http://www.amazon.com/Nathaniels-Nutmeg-Incredible-Adventures-Changed/dp/0140292608

that book, incidentally, also describes some violent encounters between English sailors and Ronin Samurai working for / with Wako pirates, and also fights between Ronin (in the service of pirates) vs. Spanish Colonial troops in the Philippines.

I think that whole area and time period really needs to be explored more, it's fascinating.

G

[Brother Oni]

Page 50, new thread is up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392804-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVII).